361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically you are saying: - Asking for peace isn’t enough - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud? Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?
I'm saying this video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence.
I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…
>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)
Protest is protected by the first amendment.
I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…
>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia) could never have been born prior to 1987. What happened yesterday in Washington, DC may prove a counterpoint to 1st amendment claims that all speech should be allowed, regardless of consequences. Edit: I see I was wrong about Fox as it is a cable network and not broadcast over public airwaves. I still…
The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of the airways, which are considered a public resource. Private cables strung by private companies into private homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.
Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he was to be removed from these platforms. The consequence of this however will be political division. If you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because they arent on the same platforms.
The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.
I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…
I don't quite disagree with this, but I'm willing to defend those who do because a slightly different weighting in my priorities would make my disagree. Inciting violence should be punished by the law , not by Facebook. For regular people it makes sense to outsource some of this to Facebook, to minimize the load on the legal system. POTUS however is one very high profile person. His statements are not being missed by…
I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…
> if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? Are you suggesting that Trump made direct calls to violence and to insurrection? If so, that is patently false. From Trump's actual Tweet on December 19th: "... Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" All he did was call upon his base of supporters to exert their first a…
Even Bill Barr just came out
>Former Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that President Donald Trump inciting a violent insurrection on Capitol Hill the previous day was a "betrayal of his office and supporters."
https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-betraye...
But go ahead and hide behind "well he never ACTUALLY said it!!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatsapp doesn't have enough penetration in the US for that to have ever mattered. I'd watch the EU for news on that front.
Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a dif…
I hate to break it to you, but bars and restaurants and concert halls can't kick out anyone they want to. There are rules around access to semi-public places. For example they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA hat, or for being black, or lots of other protected classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See for yourself: https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli... Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair characterization.
So basically you are saying: - Asking for peace isn’t enough - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud? Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?