Twitter

[sir.prize]

With the super-injunctions enforcing the media not to divulge 'celebrity names', where do you think Twitter stands in allowing allegations/revelations?

[sandyRoe]

Where are they based? If it is in the UK they might expect a visit from the constabulary

[sir.prize]

Apparently Twitter is based in San Fransisco, California.

[rojash]

Twitter don't publish information, they make it possible for their users to publish it. Therefore Twitter are not directly responsible, and the worst that could happen to them, is that they are contacted and asked to remove it.

[bibblebub]

it's all very easy to find - this is the top story on tonight's News At Ten (ITV) http://tinyurl.com/699u5gf

[sir.prize]

So ITV have joined in the controversy.

[bibblebub]

ITV did blank out the names but you don't have to be particularly imaginative to find it.

[Ellipsis]

Twitter will not be able to establish operations n the UK or probably Europe if this knot is not untied ...

So, for example, they will not be able to set up a UK sales office employing hundreds to push their advertising and future revenue streams direct to UK advertisers - which could put them at a significant disadvantage to, say, Google.

And they lay themselves open to attack in Europe from more Euro-centric micro-blogging competitors who are able to operate within UK and EU laws.

A possible solution for Twitter is to take active steps to prevent UK and European visitors being able to read tweets that are not lawful in those territories. I'm not sure how they could achieve this ...

[sp1814]

From the Guardian:

Any member of the public who can clearly be identified may well be at risk too, although it might be possible to plead ignorance until you were notified. But given that most people are deliberately breaking the injunction, that defence doesn't really cut it. Of course, anonymous tweeters are a different category – the source of the latest flurry of injunction chat on Twitter comes from an unidentified user. But – again – being anonymous may not last.

[birdie1971]

Sp1814 - “[From The Guardian] ..But – again – being anonymous may not last...”

Unless you don't know what you're doing.

There are several ways to remain completely anonymous on the internet if you know how the system works.

The newspapers and the media in general do like to purport the myth that it is impossible to hide your true identity (and geographical location) on the internet. This is simply untrue.

[netibiza]

The super injunctions are only valid in GB, not Europe, so it is easy enough for anyone who wants to see who these people are. Basically these "famous" people should behave themselves in the first place, not sin and hope to get away with it and then hide behind the skirts of super-injunctions.