Twitter removes a video tribute to George Floyd posted by Trump's campaign, saying it received a complaint from a copyright owner of at least one image

Twitter on Thursday removed a video tribute to George Floyd posted by President Trump's reelection campaign, claiming it had run afoul …

The Hill 2020-06-05 Jonathan Easley

Context & Ripple Effects

Twitter pulled a George Floyd tribute video posted by Trump's reelection campaign after a copyright owner complained about at least one image in it — a DMCA-style takedown applied to the president's own account, and part of a rapid sequence of enforcement actions against his campaign content during June 2020. A follow-up report confirms both Twitter and Facebook removed the same tribute video after the copyright complaint.

This was not an isolated ruling: weeks later Twitter removed another image from a Trump tweet over a DMCA complaint from the New York Times, and through late 2020 into January 2021 every major platform kept acting on his content under different rulesets — Facebook and YouTube citing violence risk and election-rule violations for a supporters video, TikTok pulling speeches under its misinformation policy. Copyright became one more procedural lever alongside the policy ones.

First-order effects

The Trump campaign loses the reach of a marquee tribute video across at least Twitter and Facebook, and must source or license imagery before reposting.

Second-order effects

Rights holders like the New York Times see takedown notices working against the highest-profile account on the platform, encouraging more formal DMCA enforcement instead of informal complaints; rival platforms face pressure to align their handling so the campaign cannot simply migrate the asset.

Third-order effects

If the pattern holds, moderation of political figures consolidates around procedural, legally anchored mechanisms — copyright notices, election-integrity and misinformation rules — rather than case-by-case platform judgment, giving publishers and campaigns a codified rulebook they can anticipate and contest.

The trend: Platform enforcement against Trump's content is converging on standardized takedown regimes — copyright, misinformation, and election rules — replacing ad-hoc moderation decisions.

Discussion

@teamtrump @teamtrump on x
We are working toward a more just society, but that means building up, not tearing down. Joining hands, not hurling fists. Standing in solidarity, not surrendering to hostility. https://twitter.com/...
@dangillmor Dan Gillmor on x
Dear @guardian, this story is missing an essential element — who filed the copyright takedown notice. https://twitter.com/...
@gordy_shanks Shazz on x
Twitter bans Trump tribute to George Floyd. This is not the first time Trump has been accused of copyright infringement. Lets be clear, it wasn't a tribute, it was a political stunt, making out the left are violent. #TrumpIsANationalDisgrace https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
NEWS: Dozens of Facebook's earliest employees pen an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, pushing back against his stance on Trump's posts. They helped build Facebook and wrote the original community guidelines. They believe Zuckerberg got it wrong. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ruskin147 Rory Cellan-Jones on x
Wow- the moral vacuum at the heart of Silicon Valley summed up in a tweet savagely dismantled by the excellent @karaswisher https://twitter.com/...
@taraemcg Tara McGowan on x
Trump + @parscale only love social media platforms who serve their racist, violence-inciting rhetoric and disinformation campaigns without regulation. And they're absolutely terrified about losing the narrative on any social platform. So they throw empty threats. Total wussies. h…
@pkafka Peter Kafka on x
“...Facebook's choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice.” ht…
@sethgrosenberg Seth Rosenberg on x
We've seen how unchecked authority leads to systemic oppression, yet we want to silence an open platform that enables stories like George Floyd's to be heard, shared, and opposed You can't have a system that silences voices you don't agree with but allows voices you support https…
@karissabe Karissa Bell on x
Snap is pulling Trump's account from the “For You” section of Discover as a result of his tweets. The company says it won't give “free promotion” to “voices who incite racial violence and injustice.” https://www.engadget.com/...
@karaswisher Kara Swisher on x
A common and shabby trick by some powerful folks I've covered in Silicon Valley who have no real argument, so dismiss someone's valid insights by saying they do not scale or were pushed out. Many years ago, I was told I was “emotional” by a top Facebook exec when I expressed ... …
@vanitaguptacr Vanita Gupta on x
Early Facebook Employees Disavow Zuckerberg's Stance on Trump Posts In an open letter, nearly three dozen called on the chief executive to take action on President Trump's messages. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ananny Mike Ananny on x
As with Twitter's treatment of Trump's tweets (note that Twitter doesn't *remove* them but uses interface+experience design to reduce their visibility), Snap isn't *promoting* Trump's tweets. We're very much in space of *probabilistic* speech governance: https://knightcolumbia.or…
@casey Casey Neistat on x
“We will not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice...” Snapchat taking a stand. I appreciate you @Snapchat - https://www.theverge.com/...
@shortformernie Ernie Smith on x
I really like the open letter these early Facebook employees sent out. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@tvaziri Todd Vaziri on x
Facebook employees who are actually human beings: your company makes money doing things like this. https://twitter.com/...
@matvelloso Mat Velloso on x
Facebook let this ad run for 5 days. An ad from a politician. And only took it down because they were called out. https://twitter.com/...
@lolgop @lolgop on x
He isn't worth $80 billion but Judd is much better at running Facebook than Mark Zuckerberg. https://twitter.com/...
@kathieallenmd @kathieallenmd on x
This is a disgusting breach of ethics, even for Zuckerberg. https://twitter.com/...
@schwartzesque Mattathias Schwartz on x
Instead of taking responsibility for their own product, Facebook, with its $650 billion market cap, is still relying on unpaid labor from outsiders. https://twitter.com/...
@chronotope Aram Zucker-Scharff on x
This is such a great way of putting the core problem. Facebook makes so much net profit. It could invest some of that effectively in hiring people with the skills involved in looking for, finding and holding this stuff to account. It chooses not to. https://twitter.com/...
@gunnergale Gale Anne Hurd on x
Let me say it again: #DeleteFacebook It's one positive thing all of us can do to help heal America. And you can do it from your couch. #DeleteFacebookNow What are you waiting for? https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
UPDATE: On Wedneday, another Congressional candidate in Georgia, began running an Faceboook ad advocating violence In the ad, Green cocks a semi-automatic rifle while she delivers a message to “ANTIFA terrorists”: “Stay the hell out of Northwest Georgia” https://popular.info/... …
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
3. While Facebook removed the ad, they did not respond to my request for comment. But they have a serious problem with politicians paying them money to distribute violent content. I'll let you know if I hear back https://popular.info/... https://twitter.com/...
@grammygc5 @grammygc5 on x
Ex-staffers sent an open letter to Zuckerberg, the company's policy of allowing political speech to go largely unchecked was a “betrayal of the ideals FB claims.” When will Zuckerberg stand up to DJT and do what is right? #OneVoice1 #Dems4USA #DemCast https://www.npr.org/...
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
This is shocking. Facebook ad urging people to shoot looters ran for 5 days & seen by 50,000 people. Kudos to @JuddLegum for getting it down. But cd Zuck pls answer this: ‘How am I, a guy sitting on his couch with a laptop, able to identify this kind of content before Facebook?’ …
@jhaletweets Jennifer Hale on x
.@Facebook sucks and is a destructive platform. please start a list of any viable alternatives you have used and like. https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
5. How am I, a guy sitting on his couch with a laptop, able to identify this kind of content before Facebook? I'm not sure. But for more accountability journalism that holds powerful corporations accountable, check out my newsletter —> https://popular.info/...
@anastasiakeeley Annie Shields on x
Facebook will preemptively block your ad from running if you use an image that has text taking up more than 20% of the picture. https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
4. The incident suggests Facebook doesn't care that much if politicians use the platform to disseminate violent content Facebook had $4.9B in profit in the first three months of 2020 If it wanted to stop this kind of content, it could https://popular.info/...
@lanceulanoff Lance Ulanoff on x
Facebook employee: I don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Besides Maxine, everyone you've listed is white, correct? Mark Zuckerberg: That's correct. https://www.vox.com/...
@mbaram Marcus Baram on x
Amazing that Facebook allowed this ad to run—weeks after the controversy over its content—until @JuddLegum started asking questions about it. https://popular.info/... https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
3. “We removed this ad, which advocates the use of deadly weapons against a clearly defined group of people, for violating our policies against inciting violence,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said. But why was it allowed to run for more than 5 days? https://popular.info/...

Chronicles