Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump • Hacker News Board

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#681

Post by pvorb » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

e40 wrote: post #398

ve55 wrote: 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…

The difference this time: people died.

I really wish this would've been the first time that tweets by Donald Trump led to deaths.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#682

Post by thefucnjosh » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #582

handmodel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally Angry groups of protesters and resulting deaths are not a thing that started happening this week. Twitter are pathetic and have taken a stand once the writing was on the wall.

Yeah their hesitation shouldn't have happened. They shouldn't have issued those weird corrections to his statements either, they would have had MORE credibility had they come down sooner by actually assigning someone to give the public legitimate reasons for them to ban him.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#683

Post by arp242 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

Legion wrote: post #259

allendoerfer wrote: post #167

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…

> You should counter bad arguments with better arguments We've witnessed the fallacy of this argument. It assumes a level of rationality that has been proven to be unreasonable to assume. The problem isn't that "better" arguments aren't reaching people. Rather, we have watched people exercise an incredible ability to discard overwhelming evidence and embrace narratives that have literally zero evidence to support the…

In Dutch we have a saying, which roughly translates to "a lunatic can ask more questions than ten philosophers can answer". I feel it's quite apt here too.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#684

Post by dillondoyle » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

mrchess wrote: post #177

Rebelgecko wrote: post #54

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.

When I saw the cryptic 1 sentence tweet that he wasn't going to be there, the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way. So perhaps it is a huge stretch to some, but we need to remember it is also not a stretch at all to many, especially given the recent events. Therein lies the danger.

I think that's important to contextualize: these people are insane and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.

They thought that Trump's tweet about transition meant that he would fire Pence and that's the transition, applying numerology.

At this point no matter what he says it's dangerous because of the thousands (millions?) of deranged psychopathic terrorists he has created who read them and act violently no matter what he says.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#685

Post by kyleblarson » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

garyrichardson wrote: post #365

handmodel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Additionally I believe wholesale banning the leader of a country from a platform like twitter is not black or white. Their persona is different and requires different treatment than any other given account. I suspect two factors went into the calculus this time: he has proved himself desperately dangerous AND he's got less than 2 weeks left in his term.

They still let the Ayatollah Tweet.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#686

Post by Triv888 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

admiralspoo wrote: post #202

Note that accounts such as Iran's Kamenei or those associated with groups in Pakistan, which have called for the destruction of Israel, are not banned https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir

Twitter is trying to control politics where they live, that's probably why.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#687

Post by itsdrewmiller » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #351

handmodel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reckon it also has a lot to do with ad revenue. Trump is the ONLY reason I'm on Twitter. There is literally no other benefit I gain from being on Twitter. Also, people only ever respond to me if I tweet against Trump's policies. If I say anything about science or tech or humanity or art or say some interesting ideas, nobody listens to me. Nobody retweets me. Nobody follows me. It's like talking to a wall. His term…

Trump would not have stopped generating revenue for them after leaving the Presidency.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#688

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

ve55 wrote: 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…

[deleted]

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#689

Post by thefucnjosh » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #233

handmodel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which is why interpretation of speech requires context . Yelling "fire" in an open field vs a packed cinema are obviously are easy to interpret. There's a whole bunch of grey area in the middle.

And that grey area is admittedly harder to give context to when the medium for it is text....but since he's the president and he's been physically SAYING falsehoods that lead to this situation, he should have been banned sooner.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#690

Post by bobbylarrybobby » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 12:49 AM UTC

Legion wrote: post #259

allendoerfer wrote: post #167

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…

> You should counter bad arguments with better arguments We've witnessed the fallacy of this argument. It assumes a level of rationality that has been proven to be unreasonable to assume. The problem isn't that "better" arguments aren't reaching people. Rather, we have watched people exercise an incredible ability to discard overwhelming evidence and embrace narratives that have literally zero evidence to support the…

Also most platforms make sure arguments can only even reach people who are already receptive to them. If you disagree with someone you have almost no chance of getting a message to them unless you privately message them.