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

Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 281 posts

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#151

Post by bezmenov »

shadowgovt wrote: post #141
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale. These major platforms are becoming increasingly dominant forms of communication and mediums of expression. There's a real question about when they cease being just another website or chatroom and become a public utility.

I don't think the scale argument holds water, because back in the days of AOL, AOL had, by percentage, about as much control over what mainstream user saw as Twitter and Facebook.

It's disingenuous to compare the relative reach of AOL in the 90s to that of Twitter and Facebook in 2020. In absolute terms, both Twitter and Facebook dominate contemporary discourse at a scale far surpassing any company prior.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#152

Post by shadowgovt »

bezmenov wrote: post #151
shadowgovt wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the scale argument holds water, because back in the days of AOL, AOL had, by percentage, about as much control over what mainstream user saw as Twitter and Facebook.

It's disingenuous to compare the relative reach of AOL in the 90s to that of Twitter and Facebook in 2020. In absolute terms, both Twitter and Facebook dominate contemporary discourse at a scale far surpassing any company prior.

I agree. AOL had far more control over the average online user than FB and Twitter do now. The fact we even say "FB and Twitter" indicates this.

In the early AOL era, one couldn't even use it to access the web.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#153

Post by ellyagg »

Apocryphon wrote: post #125
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale. These major platforms are becoming increasingly dominant forms of communication and mediums of expression. There's a real question about when they cease being just another website or chatroom and become a public utility.

Then regulate them, break them up, nationalize them, etc. But don't pretend that internet communities don't have the power to moderate their content. It's inherent to the format and has always been with us. One would imagine in the '90s, AOL was probably as dominant as Facebook or Twitter is today- large enough to push its own alternative to URLs ("AOL Keywords"). The difference was there were far fewer people on the…

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't just mean "no interference from government"?

Also, a difference of degree can be such that it becomes a difference in kind.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#154

Post by Apocryphon »

shadowgovt wrote: post #152
bezmenov wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to compare the relative reach of AOL in the 90s to that of Twitter and Facebook in 2020. In absolute terms, both Twitter and Facebook dominate contemporary discourse at a scale far surpassing any company prior.

I agree. AOL had far more control over the average online user than FB and Twitter do now. The fact we even say "FB and Twitter" indicates this. In the early AOL era, one couldn't even use it to access the web.

Not to mention that the other dominant ISPs were unlikely to have TOS's that were any less restrictive than AOL's. Hell, Prodigy billed itself as family-friendly, so it was likely more censor-happy than both AOL and CompuServe.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#155

Post by rbecker »

MBCook wrote: post #147
rbecker wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been encouraging to see companies grow a backbone and crack down on harassment and hate campaigns Grow a backbone, or fold to public pressure?

So the public shouldn’t be able to apply pressure against companies supporting hate groups?

I neither said nor implied that. But yielding to that pressure doesn't show backbone.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#156

Post by andrenth »

msbarnett wrote: post #136
andrenth wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?

Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.

That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class.

I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#157

Post by Apocryphon »

ellyagg wrote: post #153
Apocryphon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then regulate them, break them up, nationalize them, etc. But don't pretend that internet communities don't have the power to moderate their content. It's inherent to the format and has always been with us. One would imagine in the '90s, AOL was probably as dominant as Facebook or Twitter is today- large enough to push its own alternative to URLs ("AOL Keywords"). The difference was there were far fewer people on the…

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't just mean "no interference from government"? Also, a difference of degree can be such that it becomes a difference in kind.

It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#158

Post by bezmenov »

shadowgovt wrote: post #152
bezmenov wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to compare the relative reach of AOL in the 90s to that of Twitter and Facebook in 2020. In absolute terms, both Twitter and Facebook dominate contemporary discourse at a scale far surpassing any company prior.

I agree. AOL had far more control over the average online user than FB and Twitter do now. The fact we even say "FB and Twitter" indicates this. In the early AOL era, one couldn't even use it to access the web.

You're still overlooking the absolute scale. How many customers did peak, monopolistic AOL have?

How many collective human hours are spent within the walled gardens of Facebook and Twitter daily?

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#159

Post by bezmenov »

Apocryphon wrote: post #157
ellyagg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't just mean "no interference from government"? Also, a difference of degree can be such that it becomes a difference in kind.

It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.

It's the selective enforcement of such clauses which a causing a stir.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#160

Post by catalogia »

andrenth wrote: post #156
msbarnett wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.

That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?

For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
Post reply on HN