Twitter snuffs an Olympics critic: smart play or censorship?


The media is fuming over Twitter’s decision to suspend the account of a British journalist who used the micro-blogging site to toss barbs at NBC’s decision to time-delay its Olympic coverage over the weekend. The episode raises questions about free speech and corporate control of social media platforms. (Updated, Tuesday 9:30am)

For anyone who missed it, the brouhaha began this morning when sports site Deadspin reported that Twitter had cut off Guy Adams, an LA-based reporter for The Independent. Adams has been a standard bearer for the new #nbcfail hashtag and used his account to rattle off a series of British-inflected tirades about NBC’s time delay: “‘Sneak peak’ my arse”; “tosspot”; “Matt Lauer would do well to shut up, wouldn’t he?” and so on.

Adams apparently crossed a line when he published the email address of NBC executive Gary Zenkel and told followers to “Tell him what u think.” NBC complained to Twitter and shortly after the micro-blog site suspended Adams’ account.

Critics have since called attention to the fact that Twitter has partnered with NBC’s parent company to promote the games, and suggested that the companies decided to shut down Adams’ account as an act of reprisal.

In an email message to Adams, Twitter explained the account had been suspended because he had violated terms of service that forbid disclosing private information like a person’s telephone number or private email address. Deadspin and others have noted that is a corporate address.

So who is right? Did Adams overstep a boundary or are Twitter and NBC wrongfully censoring a journalist? Well, from a legal point of view, Twitter is in the clear. The company’s terms of service make it plain that it can boot users off the site anytime and for any reason.

Twitter’s moral position is a lot more shaky. Its reason for tossing Adams is flimsy (the email he printed was not private) and, worse, they simply caused him to disappear altogether. If you search @guyadams on Twitter, the company will suggest users with similar handles but the original Guy Adams has simply vanished in the same way that disgraced communists would vanish from Kremlin photographs.

This policy of “disappearing” people without a trace is unhealthy and something Twitter should reconsider. The site has bravely opposed police gag orders and published a groundbreaking transparency report to highlight government censorship.

In the future, Twitter should show who it is barring from the site and explain why. In the meantime, it should give Guy Adams his account back.

Update: The Telegraph reported Tuesday that NBC claims that it was Twitter who informed their social media department about Adams’ tweets and informed them how to file a complaint. Meanwhile, respected social media journalist Danny Sullivan has pointed out that Gary Zenkel’s email address was not widely available. Other are questioning the appropriateness of using Twitter to initiate ’email bombing.’ As of Tuesday morning, Twitter has remained silent in the face of what appears to be its biggest PR crisis to date.

(Image by Rui Vale de Sousa via Shutterstock)


Burkey Devitt

The whole point of the Net is to have conversations. Depending on policy these can be facilitated or silenced. I don’t know if I agree with him posting that email, but it does seem he was trying to get his audience to understand ……I’m not sure what. Need to read more about it. By publishing an email that otherwise might not pop into people’s heads, he is facilitating communication.
That communication may not be welcome, but NBC as a broadcaster does have obligations to its viewers to tell the truth. It’s in the “public service” part of the FCC license (if I’m not mistaken).
Twitter disappearing him is very sinister and chilling indeed. It’s why I stay away from social media if I can….but the object is communication and furthering conversations and ideas.
Communication law needs to address this.


Censorship, plain and simple. Also a clear signal that it was time to cancel my Twitter account: better to enjoy silence than a censored stream.

William Beem

Apparently Twitter didn’t have this policy in place for celebrities who posted an address they thought belonged to George Zimmerman. Those folks did a lot of damage, but faced no consequences.


Its a clear violation of the Freedom of the Press. The e-mail was a corporate e-mail address which did nothing to violate Twitter’s privacy policy. This was an illegal action taken by NBC and Twitter to try to protect their own interests.


“In the future, Twitter should show who it is barring from the site and explain why.”

This would be a violation of privacy for the user. Reasons given could be misinterpreted and ruin reputations.

Why my account is closed, if Twitter did so, is my personal business. It is not your business.


It is even worse: Look at Twitter’s policy. It calls for account suspension if the offender does not remove the “private” address, a step never taken in this case.

Comments are closed.