[deleted]
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
411–420 of 1001 posts
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#412This 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…
This seems like a very "engineer" response to what went on in that it misses the forest for the trees, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way (I often do it myself), just in a matter-of-fact sort of way.
On one hand, I agree with you, the actual content of those tweets is much milder than what he has tweeted before. On the other hand, that absolutely does not matter, at all. 99% of people aren't even going to read the details of what he was banned for. Those who are against him are going to think it was long overdue, and those who love him are going to see it as further evidence of Big Bad Big Tech. But in any case, the actual real, violent assault on the Capitol that was fomented by Trump is the important context of why he was banned - the details of the individual tweets are almost irrelevant.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#413This 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
Should there be a distinction when the bad things aren't said on Twitter itself? Ignoring the argument that what happened in DC was the culmination of Trump's incitement throughout his presidency, his order to his supporters to march to the Capitol, and claiming he would be marching with them, was _the_ direct call to action. It was given during his in-person speech in DC. Why should Twitter ban him for that?
I think he was banned because Democrats took control of power and FAANG is telegraphing their compliance to those now in charge of how they're going to be regulated. They're going to over-correct, as they're starting to do with banning Michael Flynn and more will follow.
Anyone on YouTube or Twitter that doesn't outright refer to the people who broke into the Capitol as terrorists or insurrectionists are getting demonitized/banned -- literally forced groupthink influenced by who is allowed to monetize their videos. People on the left are trying to extend the culpability of those who broke the law to those who voted for Trump. Implying nearly 70 million people are themselves insurrectionists. I don't think this will be good for the Internet the next time the GOP gets enough seats to pass legislation. I'd be happy knowing that's the worst of what's to come.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#414Sorry to go off-topic, but is anyone else logged in to HN and experiencing very slow response times? Except for the times HN has gone down, I've never seen it take 5-10 seconds just to load the front page or any of the comment threads. I'm assuming it has something to do with so many users checking out this thread, which is pretty amazing for a Friday night. (viewing HN in logged out mode is much faster thanks to the…
Ye
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#415Sorry to go off-topic, but is anyone else logged in to HN and experiencing very slow response times? Except for the times HN has gone down, I've never seen it take 5-10 seconds just to load the front page or any of the comment threads. I'm assuming it has something to do with so many users checking out this thread, which is pretty amazing for a Friday night. (viewing HN in logged out mode is much faster thanks to the…
Yup, everypage is super slow.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#416I haven't decided yet if I agree with it or not, to be honest. Not for this particular case but in general, as a banning policy.
In the meanwhile, though, I enjoy the thought of him being so pissed for being banned.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#417Capitol Police open the doors to the U.S. Capitol for the protestors. One officer is heard saying, “I disagree with it, but respect it.”
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1347615998610911234?s=...
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#418I understand how Twitter says that these are relevant to the recent events, but it feels like they were just sitting around waiting for him to tweet something they could latch onto to use as a reason to remove him. Because these tweets seem innocent compared to so many of his others. Really not sure how I feel about this though... weighing between the benefits of allowing open speech on “town square” Internet forums…
> these tweets seem innocent compared to so many of his others.
I think they wanted to say that the context matters. I.e. with actual violence happening not long ago and with a possibility of more violence in future, I’d say that posting relatively innocent tweets contributes to building tension.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#419Is 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.
They've wanted to ban him since day one. They just have the political backing to do it now.
Trump brought immense traffic to Twitter. Jack Dorsey is simply virtue signaling now that he’s reaped everything he can from Trump’s existence on the platform... social media has far too much power, and the heads of these organizations are not your friends.
I do not support or endorse Trump or his cronies.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#420Whatever 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…
Are you saying he has a First Amendment right on Twitter? That's not the case. Bill of Rights does not apply to Twitter.
No