News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:32AM (#14059935)
Easy: they don't benefit at all from it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can easily see how it's not a good idea to talk bad about someone who used your platform.

There's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by doing so. It's kinda lose-lose for Twitter, but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned.

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Friday April 07, 2017 @01:50PM (#14061899)
Milo has explicitly stated he didn't incite harassment, so the benefit would be demonstrating that the ban was not politically-based.

> it's not a good idea to talk bad

talking bad vs providing evidence of intent to incite harassment.

> but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned

Hmm, perhaps in your own bubble

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Friday April 07, 2017 @03:09PM (#14062635)
Why do you care so much what Twitter does?
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Saturday April 08, 2017 @08:08PM (#14069773)
Ad Hom. Do 'people' care, or don't they? That was your statement.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Sunday April 09, 2017 @11:03AM (#14072602)
I'm not really debating you since there isn't much to debate. I'm just curious why you care so much about what a private company allows on their platform.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @06:24PM (#14074656)
I'm not really engaging with your curiosity, either.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @09:45AM (#14087648)
ok.