Of the trust and safety council's members there are too many members which have little to do with bullying or harassment. I used Feminist Frequency as a prime example because it is a non-profit organization that produces youtube videos. That's all they're registered for. They have no grounding or basis for being involved with any sort of anti-harassment work. And given the fact that Feminist Frequency's leader Anita Sarkeesian actually
went to the UN to complain and try to seriously get the UN to buy that people criticizing her counted as harassment... shows that she takes an extremely broad approach to what constitutes harassment and thusly should not be in a position to make any sort of judgement calls thereof.
Hollaback is also not really about harassment. They're a company that specializes in producing viral videos. Their website claims to be about harassment, but any
critical analysis of their only work on the subject (their video) just shows that there are numerous flaws in reasoning and extreme stretching in order to create their cause. (They recorded for 10+ hours and could only show like 2 minutes of video? Plus they need to be careful because their video also sends the message that black men, those who predominantly made comments, are the problem. And that is foolishness plus a touch racist really.)
I'm kind of skeptical of Women Action Media... simply because of
their past work.
Sure there are a few who do legitimately belong there (GLAAD, FOSI, UK Safer Internet, AntiBullyingPro, etc...) But they also need to have voices that stand up for free speech to show that criticizing an idea or a piece of work is not harassment.
As for the people being banned, most of them have been banned because of a difference in opinion. They're conservative rather than liberal.
Adam Baldwin was suspended for saying "Gamergaters are much more attractive and joyous than aGGers". That's not insulting or harassing or anything really. It's an opinion, like "I think Mark Hamill sounds cooler than Clint Eastwood", that doesn't put anyone down and is true for the speaker only.
Robert Stacy McCain also got banned but no one, outside Twitter, knows why or what policy he violated.
Thunderf00t for criticizing Sarkeesian.
Make no mistake there are more than these...
Trump's account remaining is likely purely out of financial reasons. Namely that if they did anything to it that, given Trump's popularity, many users would leave and Twitter would accelerate it's decline. (Basically he's just too large to go after because it would only end poorly for them.)
As for advertisers, partly... But they also want an active userbase too. I mean what's the point in advertising if people aren't using the platform? Users are the lifeblood of a site. No users means no advertisers. And right now users are interacting less with Twitter than before. (Due to the reasons mentioned above in my previous post. )
by 12 years.
