Reporter’s Twitter Account Suspended for Critiquing Olympics Coverage

 @KenMueller  @ginidietrich  @jonmikelbailey Do it, Ken, do it! Channel the Golden Tornado within! ;)

 @ginidietrich  @jonmikelbailey Don't tempt me!

 @KenMueller  @jonmikelbailey DO IT! (OK - not really)

 @annedreshfield  @ginidietrich What kills me is that they actually tattled to NBC - there's no other way to describe it. They went out of their way to police that account.  DO THEY NOT KNOW WHO THEIR BASE IS?  It's us - techie geeks, kids and free thinkers who want a direct voice that isn't 'spun.'  

 @ginidietrich  @AmyMccTobin Interesting that they sent a lawyer out to give the statement rather than the CEO. 

 @annedreshfield  @AmyMccTobin I'm not a fan, either. I think they took this way too far. 

 @ginidietrich  @AmyMccTobin Ah, yeah, I just read that over at The Next Web! Have you guys read Twitter's official statement? I'm not a fan of how they've acted or responded to the backlash. 

 @annedreshfield  @AmyMccTobin Amy is right. After I published (and haven't had time to update - just got to my hotel), an NBC rep said Twitter alerted them. 

 @GoSeeWrite  @ginidietrich Except if your an auto company. Then the government will bail you out. ;)

 @mdyoder    @ginidietrich No business owes you anything. Nor do you owe any business to do business with them. Businesses go out of business all the time because they make bad decisions. Happens daily.

If Twitter screws up they are no different than any other business. Is is bad business for Twitter to do what it did? Maybe. But that is THEIR decision. Your decision is whether you will continue to use your product.

Get elected to the Twitter Board of Directors and then you can make their business decisions for them. Short of that... you have a vote... vote with how you give them business or don't. Not a tough concept.

 @GoSeeWrite  @ginidietrich Yes, from a legal and business perspective, Twitter can choose to run their business any way they like. But, as @ginidietrich pointed out, we live in a world of transparency and honesty and Twitter should know better than most that you can't control the message or what people are saying. Word of mouth has become world of mouth and people will find a way to get the word out.

You said something about Google (or any company) doesn't owe it to the world to run their search like we want. Don't they? Aren't we the ones paying the bills? Don't they owe it to their stock holders to run their business in a way that attracts customers rather than repels them? Sounds like smart business to me. I could give you plenty of examples of companies who tried to control the message and bully an individual with their corporate dollars and law firms. It doesn't work like it used to in a world where people use social media.

 @ginidietrich Its not a First Amendment issue. That is reserved for government censorship. This is a private entity. One thing that annoys me (I am a lawyer) is when people confuse First Amendment issues with non-government action.

There is "censorship" every day, everywhere you look and there is nothing wrong with it at all, legally. 

Look, it is no different than a newspaper, say the NY Times, being more favorable to its advertisers if they wish. Why? Because they are a private media entity. They can cover whatever news they want to cover or not cover stuff they don't want to cover. They can erase comments on their website. They can "censor" as they see fit.

Twitter is no different. People seem to assume that social media companies are some sort of quasi-public interest entities. They simply aren't. Like any company (or any private individual), they are pretty much free to do what they want.

You don't like how they conducted their business. That's fine. You have a few recourses: (1) complain. Which you have done in this post and (2) stop using their service. Free markets work when people vote with their feet. But they owe you absolutely nothing. Nadda. They don't work for you. Nor do you elect their Board of Directors. They are no different than Wal-Mart or American Airlines. They are a private business that can set their own rules (within some legal limits) and then enforce them or ignore them as they see fit.

Similarly, I don't use google search anymore, because I disagree with how they conduct their business now. But does Google "owe it to the world" to run their search like we would want? Of course not. They run it as their own business.

 @GoSeeWrite I totally disagree. This is a case of someone being critical of a big U.S. media outlet and being shut down for it. Even though it's not removed by the government, it's still censorship and we live in a country of freedom of speech and being able to say what we think. We also live in a world of transparency and honesty, which this flies in the face of. 

I do agree it's a free market and people are free to stop using Twitter if they don't like how they run their business. But I think it's bigger than that. Everyone is trying to (still) figure out how social media affects big events - such as the Olympics - and whether or not they can control it. In this case, it's pretty clear they tried to control the criticism and lost.

 @ginidietrich They don't need to apply to everyone equally. Twitter is a private company. They are free to do with their business as they wish. And the people that don't agree with how they do their line of business are free to.... stop using them.

Of course they give preference to a corporate sponsor. That's business. Makes total sense and frankly, they'd be moronic for not figuring out ways to promote their sponsors' interests. That's one way they make money, as a business.

Its a free market. People are free to stop using Twitter if they don't like how they are running their business. Twitter is not a public service. It isn't run by government. It isn't a non-profit. It isn't in the business of being "fair" or "reasonable." Its in the business of business, which is about making money.

If they end up losing money because of some practice they engage in (this one or others) because people stop using their service or because sponsors stop paying them money, they are likely to change their practices. But for people to think that Twitter, or Facebook, or LinkedIn or Reddit or any other private business "owes us" something about how they operate is simply a misguided way of looking at how free markets and business works.

 @GoSeeWrite The problem, though, is the same rules don't apply to everyone. Roger pointed out below there are at least two examples of the same types of tweets that have been distributed and those account holders have not been shut down. I don't mind if Twitter has a policy and, if someone breaks it, their account is shut down. But don't give preferential treatment to a corporate sponsor by not only alerting them to the tweet, but also showing them how to file a complaint. That or change the vision so you don't pretend to be altruistic and fight the man.