Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#721

Post by sobellian »

It used to be fairly uncontroversial that internet forums could be heavily moderated. Many of the more valuable forums I frequented in my youth were often moderated to stay on topic and cut down on spam. I cannot imagine paying much attention 20 years ago if a random forum decided even to go further than Twitter has and simply ban all Republicans or all Democrats. Indeed there are many subreddits that go this far with little fanfare. What is the dividing line here between these sites and Twitter?

Another question - what burden does a Twitter ban impose on free speech on the Internet? If Twitter bans me, I am free to move to another social media site like Parler or even make my own blog. If my views are despicable enough then some services may refuse to host me but I am unaware of anyone who has been totally bereft of a solution to put up a website.

These alternatives fail to impress for one obvious reason. It's harder to get eyeballs on Joe's random Q blog than on Twitter or Facebook. Similarly I could self-publish a book - and people do - but I lack the expertise necessary to actually get anyone to read it. I personally see social media as a set of publishers rather than as a printing press, hence why I'm not too chagrined by this decision.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#722

Post by phoinix »

Considering that censorship maybe helps with the reduction of the lies, it does currently a very poor job. 60minutes posted their totally fabricated video of Schiff, on Twitter and Youtube. It is well on air on both platforms, with hundreds of thousands of views, and their account is not suspended. This is clearly illegal, and Peter filed lawsuit for defamation against the company. However before a judgement of the law is done nothing is going on. How about waiting for the judges to look at the Trump situation and afterwards we will see? In case Twitter fact checkers work as judges, that's seriously dystopian.

https://twitter.com/60mins/status/1317769169543131136 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euabgDdLToA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S333his4q0o

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#723

Post by imgabe »

thefucnjosh wrote: post #711
imgabe wrote: post #702

Who is going to get banned for the BLM protestor that shot and killed a Trump supporter?

Is this a parody or do you actually have nouns like names that you can use?

It happened in Portland over the summer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#724

Post by effable »

young_unixer wrote: post #290

I find This whole "incitement to violence is bad" thing to be nonsensical. Political speech is practically always incitement to violence: According to Weber, the state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." [1] And political discussions are about what the state should do (executive decisions, laws, etc), that is, in which cases…

At that level of generality, a lot of things are political since one of the definitions of politics, according to Merriam-Webster [1] is: "the total complex of relations between people living in society". Does this now mean that if I hang out with a friend, this may, under this very broad definition, be considered political? Is your suggestion then that me asking my friend to hang out is in some way an incitement to violence?

I feel like these sorts of categorizations based on broad definitions of terms almost never arrive at anything substantive. Categories are generally always fuzzy on the boundaries and using strict definitions to demarcate them is a complicated process (see, for example, the Judicial System).

Also I find this opinion preposterous because the incitement to violence in this instance has nothing to do with "political discussions about what the state should do". The President certainly did not have a political discussions with his supporters about what the state should do - rather, people in a state voted to decide who should lead, according to rules that ostensibly most of the citizens agree with, which the losing party then tried to contest by trying to wield violence themselves.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#725

Post by dillondoyle »

newguy1234 wrote: post #630
dukeofdoom wrote: post #303

This has been an embarrassing incident to those in power because it made them look weak. But calling a populist movement with millions of supporters, terrorists is very short sighted. It will only accelerate the fire. The left soon will control all three branches of government, after an election that many people question, has been simultaneously advocating for censorship of its political adversaries, more draconian c…

100% this. People here fail to realize that there was some nutter on Christmas who suicide bombed himself over 5g conspiracy theories. Where was the FBI to stop this guy? No one where to be found. I hate to be the one to say this but political motivated violence will be on the rise sharply.

??

are you trying to equate the preparedness of law enforcement to prevent in advance a single mentally ill person's non-publicized surprise attack to the very publicized and clearly anticipated actions of thousands who widely published their intent in advanced?

I'm with you on likely more violence, yeah I also think probably from those considered 'left' tooe

but the better comparison between both events is that they both involve insane conspiracy theories bought into by a very specific slice of mostly white, mostly male, mostly MAGA and Q folks.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#726

Post by pnw_hazor »

tatrajim wrote: post #677

Just a quiet word from a free speech advocate who has lived in China and spoken extensively with victims of the Cultural Revolution. The overheated rhetoric here and the shrill denunciations of political rivals ring all too familiar. Ask your older Chinese friends and colleagues how they view the matter of political censorship. You may find their observations salient.

Same for my family members that escaped Vietnam. They lived though the fall of South VN and the rise of Communist VN. They see and feel similarities now that scare and depress them.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#727

Post by 12xo »

Until universal Internet access exists and is free to use for every person (including devices, access and use). The Internet and its privately owed and operated entities operating within the jurisdiction of the USA, are not the public square.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#728

Post by c22 »

kzrdude wrote: post #613
rattlesnakedave wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it will have some negative 2nd/3rd order effects. that they haven't yet realized. This is correct. The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. I’m sure that’s not what we need, but I’m also sure that there is no good way out of this mess.

I think the person who was blocked on twitter will perceive this as an escalation too.

They should have just shadowbanned him.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#730

Post by ebilgenius »

sdwa wrote: post #620
oceanplexian wrote: post #537

IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. The possibility that we might slide backwards from traditionally liberal ideas spawned from the enlightenment is utterly terrifying. And we are rapidly heading in that direction.

The trespassing and sacking of the capitol is precisely a sign of backsliding on traditionally liberal ideas from the enlightenment, much more so than Twitter banning the number one inciter of the aforementioned insurrection.

The outrage it's generated from all corners of American society seem to run against that idea. Just because a relatively small mob of determined extremists can raid a building for an afternoon does not indicate some kind of earth-shattering, society-changing transformative event. Popular social media platforms using shaky, uneven, and arguably unjustifiable logic to ban both speech and people from their respective shares of the public sphere is, however, indicative of an ever-growing attack by monopolized social platforms on exactly those traditionally liberal ideas that makes such amazingly diverse and open-minded communities to begin with.
Post reply on HN