[–] HowieCameUnglued 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Personally, I'd rather Twitter take a completely hands-off approach to the platform: if ISIS wants to tweet, that's fine, but so can Milo. Of course, they haven't done this, which gives some merit to the plaintiffs in this case. The problem isn't that Twitter is providing a service that happens to be misused; it's that Twitter is picking and choosing who can use their service and allowing ISIS. Even if Twitter can show they've put some effort into banning major terrorist accounts (and they have put some...), if the plaintiffs can show that Twitter has been using their "Trust and Safety Council" resources inappropriately (ie spending more effort witch hunting US conservatives than ISIS accounts), their suit still has teeth.
There's also a strategic benefit to permitting enemy groups to use the digital services that are based in the US, and thus controlled by the US government to whatever degree they wish. The question is whether or not this benefit (tracking, surveillance, eventual account takeover for counter-propaganda purposes) outweighs the obvious downsides.
[–] 7569443? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Twitter=Saudi's possession
ISIS=CIA assets
CIA=ClintonsIA
Clintons are Saudi's friends ;)