841–850 of 1001 posts
> The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. Who cares? The type of person that stormed the Capitol has shown they are impervious to reality. Time to stop the appeasement.
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
We don’t have to imagine. #BLM incited many riots which killed many people, what action did Twitter take there?
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.
Snowflakes gonna flake.
I realize lots of other people are breaking them also, but that's not an excuse to do it yourself.
Welcome to the Soviet Union of America, where the Left can unperson even the sitting president of the country with full impunity.
Please stop using HN for ideological battle. You've been doing it a lot and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of the ideology they're battling for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the intended spirit (and the rules) when posting here, we'd be grateful. The rules don't depend on how wrong other people are or how badly they behave. Everyone needs to…
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
It's really important realize this distinction. Imagine a newspaper printing a letter to the editor from a person whose words have previously incited a riot. I find it surprising that they enabled the account again at all after the 6th.
They needed to take hostages to get published because most media wouldn't air their messaging because of their support of violence
In the modern age they'd all have free platforms and likely amplification.
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…
the still sitting president of the USA could open a channel in telegramm (no censorship at all right now), or he could use a russian service like livejournal or vkontakte (they wouldn't have a case to ban him), but I guess that's all he could do right now.
Update: he can no longer use parler, that has been removed from both app store and google play. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-removed-fro...
it seems like banning platforms wholesale is the logical next step; so usage of alternative platforms might not be a solution.