[tablethnuser]

The rule of thumb I use is to ask: if someone had shouted this in a supermarket or bank line, what would happen?

Internet communities should aspire to be more like local communities. If you're a jerk in real life, people will show you the door.

Making this about grand abstract concepts like free speech or censorship is internet fun for people who like to debate. But it's overcomplicating the situation. Twitter is just showing a jerk the door. They can rejoin the community after an act of contrition.

The nine year thing is misdirection. Twitter's search algorithm in 2019 will still gladly show that tweet if your search term is just so. If tweets are the inventory on Twitter's store shelves, why would any business want to display the tweet in question at any time?

Academic institutions and governments have already hooked themselves up to the Twitter fire hose. All tweets are saved for archival purposes. Twitter itself doesn't have to muddy its product to provide an archival experience.

This is curatorship; not censorship. Unfortunately reality isn't ~~outrageous~~ _engagement-inducing_ enough to make the front page news.

[wccrawford]

"if someone had shouted this in a supermarket or bank line, what would happen?"

They've have been thrown out of the store for sure. They might also have been banned from the store, depending on how it escalated and how they reacted to being thrown out.

The police would have been called if they were banned, and maybe even if they were just thrown out for the day.

Twitter has basically done the same, without the cops. And they even said how to get un-banned, which was to remove the comments that violate their TOS.

[Jwarder]

> The rule of thumb I use is to ask: if someone had shouted this in a supermarket or bank line, what would happen?

I can see the appeal, but I'm not sure about this. There are tons of conversations that are (to my mind) acceptable on Twitter that would be improper on other public settings.

For example there are lots of security vulnerability discussions on Twitter that I think would get you in trouble if you were loudly talking about them while waiting in line at the bank. I've seen impolite and vulgar jokes that are acceptable to share with friends who might follow you on Twitter, but would cause some pearl clutching at my local Whole Foods.

The problem (to my eye) is that Twitter is public, but public behavior isn't universal.

[stronglikedan]

> what would happen?

Nothing. It's not a bad tweet. It's not threatening violence. It's not racist. It's not hateful towards a particular group. It's just a criticism wrapped in an insult, and frankly, not even a comparatively harsh insult. It's sad that some people think it should be removed.

[jmull]

I think the person would be kicked out of the store, possibly permanently.

I don’t think you’re going to convince too many people it’s perfectly OK to shout profanities and insults at people.

[bassman9000]

The nine year thing is misdirection

I guarantee you you have said something in the past worth banning you from multiple forums by today's standards.

This cumulative outrage recorder doesn't make any sense.

[bhelkey]

It seems to me that the core of this post is that the tweet was left up for nine years and then the account was suspended.

If someone made this tweet now and had their account suspended or the tweet in question was deleted but the account was not suspended, I doubt that we would be discussing this.

[naiveai]

Supermarkets and Twitter are exactly the same thing.

[koheripbal]

There's another aspect to this... the user in question lives in New Zealand. Should their foul-mouthed tweet to a US Senator during a US election have the same protections as an American's tweets?

It's not immediately apparent that he's from and lives in New Zealand unless you really dig through his content, something most readers won't do. In aggregate, this might influence American voters into thinking there's some substance to anti-Palin rhetoric.

Isn't that a form of foreign influence?