371–380 of 1001 posts
I find it funny the number of hackernews users who continue to defend or minimize trump's behavior and actions. When a comment describing Trump as fascist (he is one) is flagged due to downvotes it's a bit odd.
Only 5 people died, so I guess small price to pay to massage some folks' egos.
Whatever you think about Trump, he has First Amendment rights under the U.S. constitution. If violating the law, he should be punished, but it is not up to private companies to revoke constitutional rights. Trump still has the right to speak publicly. No one should wish that he be silenced by private companies. Trump should just tell his supporters to go to his own web site and communicate with them that way. There's…
The first amendment prevents the government from making laws which prevent free speech. Private companies aren't obliged to host that speech if they don't want to
Twitter banning Trump isn't such a big deal. He can get a web site and email service from AWS or other cloud providers.
But what if the cloud providers ban his web site and email?
What if backbone internet providers and data centers banned his IT team from running their own web/email servers?
There is no government run internet. It is all run by private companies. Which means that if private companies wanted to, they could restrict access to anyone they want.
This is clearly wrong. We either need to create a government run internet backbone + data centers, or to draw some line at how much power private internet companies have.
The Supreme Court could decide that the internet is so vital to the First Amendment in the modern world that the top N social media or internet infrastructure companies have to behave as if they were government run with respect to the First Amendment.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints: a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments. b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad. I have…
But it's pretty complicated. Defining intolerance, eliminating bots, etc. Not an easy task.
74 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
You say this like its the first time Americans have had to learn to live with having lost a federal election. Half the country is disappointed every four years. Starting to make concessions to terrorists because they got really upset after being lied to repeatedly makes no sense.
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.
And one man's "harmful communication" is another woman's useful communication.
Since your comment is egregiously wrong and, in my opinion, harmful, I'm going to delete it so that it doesn't mislead people about the harms of censorship.
See where I'm going with this?
I say my opinion, you present your side, and we can debate, or move on, but we have both had our say (albeit, at varying shades of grey on HackerNews ;)
The notion of "harmful tweets" is a very 2020s phenomenon but the concept goes back thousands of years. There's a reason our Bill of Rights is strongly inspired by Voltaire, Descartes, and other (then) modern thinkers.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will give my life for your right to say it."
It feels as though we've backslid from that ideal.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Without the important balance between left and right, it’s going to be a free for all on both sides, with each amping each other up to retreat further and further into extreme parts of their respective sides. Twitter just inserted a nuclear bomb into the already delicate fault lines between left and right.
I am loving people who don't understand that they are literally supporting billionaires while claiming to be anti-corporate resistance. Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." I am still a…
Let’s spend some time reading books, maybe we can go back to solving illusive pedophile rings online when we are better educated as a species.
One thing that’s scary is that his whole history of tweets has been completely been made unaccessible. It’s hard to imagine how much web embed/linked those tweets.
It's quite bizarre the situation we find ourselves in, the way these sort of primary historical documents exist at the whims of certain organizations, not to mention the strict ideological alignment of these organizations.
Future historians I'm sure would greatly appreciate if someone started version controlling the web.
And people presently alive would probably appreciate it if we could socially work out a way to have communication channels, our ability to exchange information and understand the recent past not under this sort of autocratic control.
This goes well past DJT. It would be nice if people, no matter their feelings about Trump, could understand the gravity of this.
My shock and disturbance at seeing this is equal to what we saw at the capitol.