Gentle sanctions for violations: Twitters new rules for heads of state

Twitter has its virginity moment: "When it comes to what world leaders do on Twitter, we know it's largely new territory," the company writes in a blog post. In the post, Twitter explains how and why politicians in his service may violate the terms of use. "We want to make it clear that the accounts of political leaders are not completely above our rules," they say.

The post can be summed up as follows: Twitter wants to slow down the dissemination of politician tweets whose contents violate the rules of the service. Thus, the possibilities are limited to retweet or like such contributions. Only the so-called retweet with comment should remain possible.

Problematic tweets should also no longer appear in the algorithmic sorting of the timeline. In addition to the tweets, users should be able to see an indication of the rule violation and explicitly confirm that they want to see the news.

In June, the tweets of world leaders say they will stay on Twitter in the public interest. We are providing more transparency and details about how these are made are.https: //t.co/kbELAkOQcY

In six areas, the company also wants to be strict in the case of politicians and delete content:

• in the glorification of terrorism,
• "clear and direct threat of violence",
• when publishing private data such as addresses and telephone numbers,
• in intimate photos and videos without the consent of the person concerned,
• in the sexual exploitation of children
• as well as any kind of self-injury.

In the summer Twitter had stated that tweets of politicians can stay on the platform even if they violate rules of service. This should happen, for example, when the tweets have news value or there is a public interest in keeping the content available.

Between lies and censorship

In the US, among other things, several tweets of President Donald Trump sparked discussions about whether they violated the rules of the service. The prohibited content includes - as with other online platforms - for example, calls for violence or hate speech.

Social networks such as Twitter and Facebook are repeatedly accused of spreading false, misleading or offensive messages from politicians. At the same time, the providers do not want to expose themselves to the accusation of censorship.