331–340 of 1001 posts
We don’t have to imagine. #BLM incited many riots which killed many people, what action did Twitter take there?
We don’t have to imagine. #BLM incited many riots which killed many people, what action did Twitter take there?
They let him concede, waited a day, and then nuked him. It's too little too late, but I'll take it.
You may agree with this new power now when its used on Trump, but you might not agree with it in the future. By then it will have been too late.
However, I also prefer anarchy to oligarchy: People have even specifically demonstrated that Trump was receiving special privileges which prevented him from being banned, and they did so by getting themselves banned for tweeting copies of his tweets.
Two extremes of takes here on HN. Either it's "too little too late" or "i don't like unelected tech leaders having the power to deplatform POTUS". The reality is somewhere in the messy middle. If you distance yourself from the blow-by-blow and look at the chronology like a historian might, though, it is really hard to escape the fact that the social media platforms are dumping Trump days before Biden takes over. They…
Okay, let's retroactively suspend John McCain for singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" on a hot mike. President George W. Bush should be suspended for invading Iraq on false or flimsy pretexts, resulting in 6,000 American soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Obama lied when he said "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" eleven times and this turned out not to be true (90% anyway). Sh…
That’s not censorship (private companies, etc), and reducing the flow of harmful communication is a good thing.
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”
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
I definitely get the "my company - my rules" POV. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private spaces.
Then again, I'm not convinced that moderators ought to have the power to control what sorts of ideas are interrogated publicly (e.g. in the company of strangers). It's particularly problematic when the social climate at the companies that control these platforms is synonymous with the Progressive echochamber, but it's also hard to imagine any body that would be qualified to police ideas.
One of the worst things to happen this decade is the rise of social echochambers, where groups of people intellectually isolate themselves amongst likeminded people, writing-off dissenters as evil strawmen. The groupthink in these echochambers is nudged further to the extremes by the loudmouthed activists who control what ideas people are comfortable expressing. Large groups isolating themselves in these constantly drifting echochambers leads to the problems we saw this week in Washington. I fear making the platforms synonymous with these echochambers will only make this problem worse.
Anonymity and free expression have historically been some of the best qualities of the Internet. Anyone can say - and think - anything, and share those thoughts with everyone. That's always included snark, parody, and similar absurdities. People don't always mean what they say - they often might not even know _if_ they mean what they say.
Those same qualities make it particularly vulnerable to misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Figuring out how to help people understand what's likely to be true without censoring the kinds of ideas people can openly express is one of the great challenges of our time. I really hope we solve it.
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
[0]: https://nypost.com/2019/11/03/aoc-tweets-her-support-for-ant...