Trump complained to Twitter CEO about lost followers: source

By David Shepardson

 

FILE PHOTO: The Twitter logo is displayed on a screen on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., September 28, 2016. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump met with Twitter Inc's Chief Executive Jack Dorsey on Tuesday and spent a significant time questioning him about why he has lost some Twitter followers, a person briefed on the matter said.

 

The meeting, which was organized by the White House last week, came hours after Trump again attacked the social media company over his claims it is biased against conservatives.

 

"Great meeting this afternoon at the @WhiteHouse with @Jack from @Twitter. Lots of subjects discussed regarding their platform, and the world of social media in general. Look forward to keeping an open dialogue!" Trump tweeted, posting a photo of Dorsey and others with him in the Oval Office.

 

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump suggested Twitter was biased against him without providing evidence. He wrote on Twitter that the company does not "treat me well as a Republican. Very discriminatory."

 

Twitter said in a statement Dorsey had a "constructive meeting with the president of the United States today at the president's invitation. They discussed Twitter's commitment to protecting the health of the public conversation ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections and efforts underway to respond to the opioid crisis."

 

Unlike other major U.S. tech company executives, Dorsey had not previously met with Trump.

 

He was not invited to a December 2016 meeting with president-elect Trump that featured other major tech companies. Reuters reported in 2016 Trump had been angry with Twitter because it had rejected an advertising deal with his campaign.

 

Trump has been upset about losing followers.

 

In October, Trump wrote that "Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join - they have stifled growth to a point where it is obvious to all. A few weeks ago it was a Rocket Ship, now it is a Blimp! Total Bias?"

 

Any reduction is likely the result of Twitter's recent moves to remove millions of suspicious accounts after it and other social media services were used in misinformation campaigns attempting to influence voters in the 2016 U.S. presidential race and other elections, Reuters reported in October.

 

Shares in Twitter jumped 13 percent on Tuesday after it reported quarterly revenue above analyst estimates, which executives said was the result of weeding out spam and abusive posts and targeting ads better.

 

Trump lost 204,000, or 0.4 percent, of his 53.4 million followers in July when Twitter started its purge of suspicious accounts, according to social media data firm Keyhole.

 

Trump has one of the most-followed accounts on Twitter. But the president and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly criticized the company and its social media competitors for what they have called bias against conservatives, something Twitter denies.

 

Democratic U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono said earlier this month "we cannot allow the Republican party to harass tech companies into weakening content moderation policies that already fail to remove hateful, dangerous and misleading content."

 

Carlos Monje, Twitter’s public policy director, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month the site "does not use political viewpoints, perspectives or party affiliation to make any decisions, whether related to automatically ranking content on our service or how we develop or enforce our rules."

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Tom Brown)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-24

Awww is poor Donald playing the victim again?kinda think people are getting sick and tired of the troll in chief 

6 minutes ago, webfact said:

U.S. President Donald Trump met with Twitter Inc's Chief Executive Jack Dorsey on Tuesday and spent a significant time questioning him about why he has lost some Twitter followers

 

Now thats a baited headline. 

 

11 minutes ago, webfact said:

"does not use political viewpoints, perspectives or party affiliation to make any decisions, whether related to automatically ranking content on our service or how we develop or enforce our rules."

 

Complete BS. 

 

14 minutes ago, webfact said:

protecting the health of the public conversation

 

What does this even mean. Such a cringe way to say that were going to manipulate and amplify certain things and topics over others because we are the arbiters of whats best for you.

A man who occupies the worlds biggest stage, the President of the United States of America, who can garner the attention of almost every news media in that country at the drop of a hat, is upset at a company because he has lost a few followers for his night time tweets. What a strange creature.

What a moron. Did he call him Jack Twitter? ????

I heard that the accounts being removed were fake accounts, possibly created by Trump staffers to inflate his ego.

This is the type of crap you expect from a 14 year old girl, not the President of the United States

Fake News. Yet more lies from the Liar in Chief, Donald Trump. The truth is that Twitter did get rid of accounts of some of his supporters, who were inciting hatred etc. Following that the company's quarterly monthly active user (MAU) count INCREASED by 9 million to reach 330 million from the previous quarter.

I would have thought the POTUS would have more important issues on his plate than how many Twitter followers he has. For the most powerful man in the world, he is strangely insecure.

Next Donald will be calling GOD in to complain about the weather! its upsetting his golf. Poor baby some people still love you. Dont cry yet!

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I would have thought the POTUS would have more important issues on his plate than how many Twitter followers he has. For the most powerful man in the world, he is strangely insecure.

 

Its part of the larger issue of censorship. If the big 3 social media corps censor people and views, it creates a disadvantage for some. An uneven playing field. Its not right. 

 

For example:

 

18 minutes ago, Estrada said:

who were inciting hatred

 

What, exactly, does this even mean? Who decides what 'inciting hatred' is? 

 

How many people on the right do you hear trying to silence critics by de-platforming, banning, de-monetizing, etc? Almost none. On the left? Pretty much everyone. Its extremely naive to believe that this isnt a system that disadvantages conservatives. 

 

The fact that the left supports this and mocks people who raise the issue is very telling. 

 

10 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its part of the larger issue of censorship. If the big 3 social media corps censor people and views, it creates a disadvantage for some. An uneven playing field. Its not right. 

 

For example:

 

 

What, exactly, does this even mean? Who decides what 'inciting hatred' is? 

 

How many people on the right do you hear trying to silence critics by de-platforming, banning, de-monetizing, etc? Almost none. On the left? Pretty much everyone. Its extremely naive to believe that this isnt a system that disadvantages conservatives. 

 

The fact that the left supports this and mocks people who raise the issue is very telling. 

 

With all due respect he is potus he is in command of the bulley pulpit to waste time on this bs is something you would expect from a kid let alone potus it’s probably a manifestation of his narcissism 

Just now, Tug said:

With all due respect he is potus he is in command of the bulley pulpit to waste time on this bs is something you would expect from a kid let alone potus it’s probably a manifestation of his narcissism 

 

Its widely recognized and complained about on conservative side of politics, and its blatantly obvious. You might not think its a big deal, but it is to alot of people. Trump giving that a voice is a good thing. 

19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its part of the larger issue of censorship. If the big 3 social media corps censor people and views, it creates a disadvantage for some. An uneven playing field. Its not right. 

 

For example:

 

 

What, exactly, does this even mean? Who decides what 'inciting hatred' is? 

 

How many people on the right do you hear trying to silence critics by de-platforming, banning, de-monetizing, etc? Almost none. On the left? Pretty much everyone. Its extremely naive to believe that this isnt a system that disadvantages conservatives. 

 

The fact that the left supports this and mocks people who raise the issue is very telling. 

 

The people who own the platform decide what is unacceptable inciting hate.

 

This does not remove any rights to free speech, you can still stand in the street and say whatever you wish... so long as you understand that if you stray into inciting hate there might be consequences visited upon your person.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The people who own the platform decide what is unacceptable inciting hate.

 

This does not remove any rights to free speech, you can still stand in the street and say whatever you wish... so long as you understand that if you stray into inciting hate there might be consequences visited upon your person.

 

Glad you're on record in support if this, which is wholly unsurprising, but completely indicative of the left nowadays. 

 

Cant win with your words alone? Block the other person from talking. 

 

Its cowardice. Plain and simple. 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

"Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join 

Yes, they have added a line of programming asking people who want to join his account to first demonstrate Pythagora's theorem before being allowed to. ????

The guy is not only a moron, he is also paranoiac.

 

30 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

You might not think its a big deal, but it is to alot of people. Trump giving that a voice is a good thing. 

Only to Trump supporters, and even they are starting to admit he's a crook and a liar and, as such, his numbers are declining.

19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Glad you're on record in support if this, which is wholly unsurprising, but completely indicative of the left nowadays. 

 

Cant win with your words alone? Block the other person from talking. 

 

Its cowardice. Plain and simple. 

Tell me when you’ve won support from Illiberals for forcing private businesses to forego the right to decide what is or is not acceptable on the media networks they own. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Glad you're on record in support if this, which is wholly unsurprising, but completely indicative of the left nowadays. 

 

Cant win with your words alone? Block the other person from talking. 

 

Its cowardice. Plain and simple. 

You should spend time reading the attacks and threats made by Illiberals against people expressing views Illiberals don’t like to hear.

 

Oddly, Illiberals have a particular habit of targeting women Who express liberal ideas or points of view.

 

’cowardice’ you say!

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Tell me when you’ve won support from Illiberals for forcing private businesses to forego the right to decide what is or is not acceptable on the media networks they own. 

 

Again, you're just blatantly admitting they censor. Its cowardice, plain and simple. 

 

I do support the breaking up of the social media monopoly, just like Reagan did with AT&T and I do support an internet Bill Of rights, that wold put a stop to stuff like this. 

Defeat people with your words, not gaming the system to stop people from talking.

2 hours ago, rheinwiese said:

What a moron. Did he call him Jack Twitter? ????

No, but Jack called him President Twit.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should spend time reading the attacks and threats made by Illiberals against people expressing views Illiberals don’t like to hear.

 

Oddly, Illiberals have a particular habit of targeting women Who express liberal ideas or points of view.

 

’cowardice’ you say!

 

Yeah sure, better stop those bad 'illiberals' from talking then because they are so dangerous to women ????

 

And yeah, cowardice. In its purist from. 

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Again, you're just blatantly admitting they censor. Its cowardice, plain and simple. 

 

I do support the breaking up of the social media monopoly, just like Reagan did with AT&T and I do support an internet Bill Of rights, that wold put a stop to stuff like this. 

Defeat people with your words, not gaming the system to stop people from talking.

You are aware that the First Amendment only protects free speech against suppression by the Government aren’t you?!

 

Elizabeth Warren will be delighted to hear your support for breaking up social media giants.

Dumb, de, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should spend time reading the attacks and threats made by Illiberals against people expressing views Illiberals don’t like to hear.

 

Oddly, Illiberals have a particular habit of targeting women Who express liberal ideas or points of view.

 

’cowardice’ you say!

 

Ahh the good old Yewessay. Liberal= Socialist=COMMIE B'STARD. ????

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its part of the larger issue of censorship. If the big 3 social media corps censor people and views, it creates a disadvantage for some. An uneven playing field. Its not right. 

 

 

AFAIK there are plenty of strident alt-right platforms out there, Steve Bannon and Breitbart News springs to mind. Don't see any censorship of their views.

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Its widely recognized and complained about on conservative side of politics, and its blatantly obvious. You might not think its a big deal, but it is to alot of people. Trump giving that a voice is a good thing. 

Well apparently it was a bunch of bots trying to get people to look at (russan hoax)instead of the muller report guess they got caught this time

3 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

This is the type of crap you expect from a 14 year old girl, not the President of the United States

I can honestly say that the vast majority of 14 year old girls I've ever met have been way more mature than the tragedy in the WH. And that's pretty scary considering that he's the one with the codes to the nukes.

5 minutes of googling shows that most accounts have been banned because they were fake, troll farms, bots, often related to foreign countries, notably Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

On top of it, that a is no evidence that the lost followers were banned accounts. Another fake news.

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

What, exactly, does this even mean? Who decides what 'inciting hatred' is? 

Moderators?

where art thou moderators, when we need you most? ????