Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#31

Post by username3 »

benmowa wrote: post #29
chollida1 wrote: post #5

In a slightly related topic to blocking people on twitter, Elon Musk is being investigated by the SEC for a whole whack of things he shouldn't have done. 1) Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading and 2) and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very c…

if i can access the tweets via twitter without logging in, how can someone block me?

They can make their tweets private.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#32

Post by jonknee »

josteink wrote: post #12
mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle, even if Musk unblocks everyone, users could conceivably not be served a tweet that would fall under SEC regulation based solely on the algorithm deciding they would “engage” more with other content.

> With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle .... deciding they would “engage” more with other content. Ironically, every time I notice a platform I use doing this, it immediate reduces my engagement for it. I can’t be the only one, can I?

> I can’t be the only one, can I?

No, but as long as more people go the opposite direction it is a net positive. Considering it's seemingly the natural progression of timelines I am guessing the numbers show that this is the case.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#33

Post by MrStonedOne »

bumholio wrote: post #28
beager wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the decision comes down to that some people have the ability to be a part of the conversation on Twitter, but not the people that Trump has blocked, and therefore that's considered unequal treatment. To follow your analogy, nobody can post their podcast on the White House's website. If Donald Trump somehow had replies completely turned off for his Twitter, I don't think a case could be made that first ame…

Well, that discrimination exists on the current White House site. I just went there and on the front page I found this article, that quotes some people friendly to Trump's policies, many of them (ironically) sourced from tweets: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/wtas-support... So why should these people be cited, but not others critical to the administration? Who gets to make that decision, and why can…

The white house's website, (and more particularly, a section dedicated to publishing official statements) is not a public forum.

The comment section of tweets is. And how government entities engage in public forums is regulated by the constitution and case law. Excluding people for previous expressions of their first amendment rights violates the first amendment in two rights, as it punishes the citizen for how they exercised their 1st amendment rights, in a way that further limits their 1st amendment rights.

This is akin to town halls ran by the government in private buildings. The building owner can surely exclude you because they don't like what you say, but the government can not.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#34

Post by jonknee »

jrockway wrote: post #27
mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Twitter’s gradual shift from chronological timeline to overeager algorithmic shuffle, even if Musk unblocks everyone, users could conceivably not be served a tweet that would fall under SEC regulation based solely on the algorithm deciding they would “engage” more with other content.

I'm not sure I agree. I assume that the SEC is fine if you take out an ad in the New York Times to announce your news, but that requires that people know to read the ads there, that they can afford a copy of the newspaper, etc. There is no such thing as a method of notifying everyone simultaneously. Posting to a public Twitter account is as good as anything else.

Well the times allows anyone to buy it, it doesn't specifically block certain people from reading. This isn't a big issue, every other CEO other than Elon Musk has no problem controlling his/her tweets to not contain market moving news. They should make an example out of him and we'll go back to having everyone disclose news in the proper channels. If the SEC does not come down on him it will be the wild west and investors will be worse off.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#35

Post by egypturnash »

yosito wrote: post #15
chollida1 wrote: post #5

In a slightly related topic to blocking people on twitter, Elon Musk is being investigated by the SEC for a whole whack of things he shouldn't have done. 1) Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading and 2) and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very c…

In traditional media, there are different rules for public figures than there are for private citizens. I think the same thing should apply to Twitter. Verified accounts should not be able to block anyone.

Oh I like that. Might get Twitter to actually do something about how uncivil they've let the general standard of discussion become if having that precious little checkmark meant it was impossible to block anyone.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#36

Post by MichaelBurge »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #18
chollida1 wrote: post #5

In a slightly related topic to blocking people on twitter, Elon Musk is being investigated by the SEC for a whole whack of things he shouldn't have done. 1) Release material information without alerting the exchange to stop trading and 2) and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very c…

> and this is the tie in, releasing said information on his personal twitter account. Now this is normally fine based on RegFD but he has blocked people on twitter and RegFD is very clear that information can't not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time. How does that work when the account is public and can be read by anyone (presumably including any blocked users) by just not sign…

If it's a reply, you can't browse their full timeline without signing in.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#37

Post by foobarchu »

bumholio wrote: post #28
beager wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the decision comes down to that some people have the ability to be a part of the conversation on Twitter, but not the people that Trump has blocked, and therefore that's considered unequal treatment. To follow your analogy, nobody can post their podcast on the White House's website. If Donald Trump somehow had replies completely turned off for his Twitter, I don't think a case could be made that first ame…

Well, that discrimination exists on the current White House site. I just went there and on the front page I found this article, that quotes some people friendly to Trump's policies, many of them (ironically) sourced from tweets: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/wtas-support... So why should these people be cited, but not others critical to the administration? Who gets to make that decision, and why can…

I'd say the difference is that Whitehouse.com is granting it on an individual basis, as a whitelist. On Twitter, Trump is himself picking and choosing who to blacklist. It's ok to only allow some people to join the conversation, it's not ok to selectively say "no, you CANT join" due to personal disagreements.

Juvenile comparison, but it's like how school teachers won't usually let kids give out birthday invites in class unless they give one to everybody, because otherwise you get just the unpopular kids being selectively disinvited. Yet those kids are allowed to give those invites outside the classroom/public forum

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#38

Post by bumholio »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #33
bumholio wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that discrimination exists on the current White House site. I just went there and on the front page I found this article, that quotes some people friendly to Trump's policies, many of them (ironically) sourced from tweets: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/wtas-support... So why should these people be cited, but not others critical to the administration? Who gets to make that decision, and why can…

The white house's website, (and more particularly, a section dedicated to publishing official statements) is not a public forum. The comment section of tweets is. And how government entities engage in public forums is regulated by the constitution and case law. Excluding people for previous expressions of their first amendment rights violates the first amendment in two rights, as it punishes the citizen for how they…

So if mr. Trump declares his Twitter account "not a public forum, but a section dedicated to publishing official supportive replies, that by default publishes all replies and selectively deletes those who aren't supportive", will that make things ok?

It's not like a town hall because there is no official charter for what the realDonalTrump Twitter is. It seems some people want to enforce their view that it's a public forum, while clearly violating mr. Trump's own 1st amendment rights by forcing him to promote on his Twitter page content that is damaging to him.

The "on his Twitter page" distinction is critical, because you can still use the wider Twitter public forum as before, and you can engage in the wider conversation, you just don't have the same visibility to his followers. You were evicted form a personal performance of the President juggling pink dildos.

Re: Trump unblocks more Twitter users after U.S. court ruling

#40

Post by factsaresacred »

So how does this fit into the "Twitter is a private company" argument when users complain about their free speech rights after being suspended?

If one's account is suspended they cannot - by definition - access Trump's tweets. This is similar reasoning as that given in court: "comments on the president’s account [are] public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution".

If Twitter suspends someone for their views are they violating free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Obviously there's many ways to interact with Twitter while suspended - similarly there are many ways to read Trump's tweets while blocked.

I don't have a take, I'm just curious as to what this may lead to.

Post reply on HN