Live data from Hacker News

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#62
post #52
post #28

Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.

That private businesses can keep people off of their properties?

clearly it’s more than that. these companies are more than just private companies they are social utilities. and might be regulated as such in the future. that’s my point.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#63
If no tv network will carry his remarks live, and no social network will give him a posting account, then he has no way of communicating with the American people and it seems pretty difficult to make the case that he is able to carry out his duties.

So I guess what I'm saying is: invoke the 25th amendment because he got kicked of Twitter.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#65
post #44

This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…

I think the logic isn't that hard.

Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally.

Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#68
post #23

4 years of fascism and inciting violence is all it took. This is far too little too late and Twitter is clearly complicit.

Consider yourself lucky that you have absolutely no idea what fascism looks like.

Not sure why you're being downvoted....

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#70
post #44

This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…

Of course, it’s unreasonable to act upon what someone did X years ago.
Post reply on HN