I've contacted Twitter via their "Suspended account" form: https://support.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=suspended

  Hi Twitter. I agree with you that tweeting another person's
  private, confidential > information warrants some sort of
  action on your part (not the least of which would be
  removing said tweet). You have chosen to suspend accounts
  for this. That's fine too.
  
  However, I believe your policy should apply to everyone
  equally. Most notably, Spike Lee's twitter account is still
  active. If you recall: he retweeted a tweet that he believed
  contained George Zimmerman's address: 
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/spike-lee-apologizes-george-zimmerman-address-tweet-015514123.html .
  Regardless of one's opinions on the Zimmerman/Martin case,
  this is in direct violation of Twitter's ToS and warrants
  immediate account suspension for the original tweeter and
  Spike Lee (and anyone else who touched that tweet).
  
  I know you will do the right thing.

EDIT: I received this automated message from Twitter:

  Hello, 

  If you're writing in about <me> being suspended, this
  account is not currently suspended; please review any
  previous communications from Twitter for clarification
  about what the reason for the suspension may have been.
  
  If you are writing in about an account other than <me>
  being suspended, please refile the ticket from the
  suspended account. 
  
  If you are writing in about an issue other than your
  account being suspended -- including if you believe your
  account to have been deactivated or compromised -- please
  refile a ticket via the appropriate form; you'll find the
  forms at https://support.twitter.com/forms. 
  
  Thanks, 
  Twitter Trust & Safety

I have refiled using the "Tweets/messages" form: https://support.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=web_tweet...

EDIT 2: I received another automated message, this time with a bunch of ideas on how I can troubleshoot my problem, heh. This message, however, included reference to a support ticket number and this:

  If the above links help resolve your issue, no need to
  reply. Otherwise, let us know where you are still stuck.

Well, it didn't resolve my issue. So I responded:

  Hi, I believe this automated response does not address my
  concern. My concern is about an inconsistent application
  of penalties for violating the Twitter ToS. It would be
  great if I could get a real person to look at this. My
  original message is as follows:

(With my original message included)

Inconsistent application is the entire point. Power is most fearsome when arbitrary.

Things like these make the "private information" argument super fishy. Twitter has taken a very free speech oriented position in the past (just remember the not shutting down of lulzsec/anonymous accounts). The actions of Twitter in the NBC case and the close sponsorship alliance between both make Twitter appear as a very weak when it comes to standing up against corporate interests.

I always find these sorts of situations to be kind of surreal.

Twitter has a wide number of policies that capture a large number of behaviors and they selectively enforce them when someone who has paid them a lot of money tells them to.

Twitter isn't a public company, they aren't even a 'news' service with any sort of reputation to uphold for impartiality. They have a bunch of servers which throw around the equivalent of SMS messages to a bunch of clients based on a self assembled directed graph by its users. Those servers cost money, the place that hosts them costs money, the people who run them cost money. 99% of the people who use twitter give them no money in exchange for that privilege. So the 1% that do give them money get to call the shots. Is this astonishing? Is this evil? Is this even surprising?

You want a service that is less beholding to the 1% use indenti.ca, you want to share what ever the hell you feel like with the folks who may (or may not) want to hear it, you can rent sn EC2 instance and blast it out.

I find the discussion about what Twitter should or should not do in this case surreal.

Corporations usually look out for each other.

I fail to see how this is similar unless you have proof that someone filed a complaint and Twitter failed to act on it.

It's more complicated than that. FTFA:

> He quoted an NBC spokesman as saying: "Our social media department was actually alerted to it by Twitter and then we filled out the form and submitted it."

So yeah, a complaint was filed, but the alleged violation was initially identified by Twitter.

So are you saying that even if Twitter knows about Spike Lee's violation (which they likely do), Twitter does not have to act unless somebody files a complaint?

Don't worry everyone, I have just filed a complaint (above). I'm sure Twitter will suspend Spike Lee's account as soon as they receive it.

/s

In all seriousness, you all might want to fill their inboxes with similar complaints.

Unless George Zimmerman files the complaint himself, I think you getting Spike Lee suspended isn't going to happen.

Maybe not me, but there is strength in numbers. I think the most important thing is making it, at the very least, an uncomfortable situation for Twitter. These 'untouchable' entities need to know they can't continue to get away with stuff without a fight.

Do you have a blog or something like that? Don't know if this gets enough momentum just from within the comment section. If you wrote a post on that I am quite certain it would go to the front page.

I don't have a blog. Thanks for the support though. Anyone and everyone who does have a blog is more than welcome to take my idea and run with it. The post in question (http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4318034) is now licensed with the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).

I wonder if the NBC exec filed the complaint personally. After all, if it was his, 'private' information and email address, then what standing does the NBC intern have who filled the complaint have? Just a concerned citizen? Oh, but it wasn't a private email was it? I'm confused. A person tweets the corporate contact email of an executive and that's not ok? But Spike Lee tweets the personal address of someone he thought was Zimmerman's with the presumption that someone would act on that information and that's ok? Spike Lee potentially endangered a life (the people at address received death threats).. What's the worst that could have happened to an NBC exec-- he gets a strongly worded letter? Twitter should always come out in the side of presuming free speech unless that speech violates the law. Tweeting someone's email address does not meet that standard. And, the fun part is that NBC is a public company. Shareholders technically have a right to information regarding the executive team in the context of their role at the company.

C'mon Twitter, don't be evil.

I find it somewhat odd to claim a business email address as "personal" contact information. If he puts it out on business cards with company logo on it, or if it's anywhere on the web, it certainly isn't "personal" and it is obviously meant as a means for contacting him about business related things.

I just find this to be a cheap way of shifting the focus away from the public backlash about their crappy programming decisions.

And Twitter has gone along with it. Sigh.

Twitter didn't just go along with it - according to NBC, Twitter suggested it.