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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#901

Post by AnthonyMouse »

handmodel wrote: post #65
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…

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

> 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

By this logic do we not also have to delete the account of everyone prominent who tweeted anything to the effect of "no justice no peace" with respect to BLM, given that several people died there as well?

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#902

Post by ardy42 »

skindoe wrote: post #226
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

He literally told people to stay peaceful...

> He literally told people to stay peaceful...

It's not like that's all he said...

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#903

Post by ibeckermayer »

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…

The fact that people can be mistaken, led astray, propagandized, etc. doesn't contradict the original statement that one _should_ counter bad arguments with better arguments. In fact your argument is falling victim to the is-ought fallacy -- Things are a certain way, therefore they shouldn't be another way.

The fact of the matter is that its true that bad arguments _should_ be fought with better arguments; that's a necessary assumption at the base of any philosophic discourse, and doesn't magically disappear when some section of people are disagreeing with you.

It's ironic that you call the OP naive, as your line of thinking leads directly to censorship, and history can attest to where that leads.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#904

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #901
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

> 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 By this logic do we not also have to delete the account of everyone prominent who tweeted anything to the effect of "no justice no peace" with respect to BLM, given that several people died there as well?

[deleted]

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#905

Post by fapjacks »

mattnewton wrote: post #668
dredmorbius wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environment has changed. Previously theoretic risks are now manifest, demonstrated, and cognizable. Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred. The instigator is unrepentent and non-credible in what are at best tepid disavowals. The totality of context has changed. If "he has t…

The environment has changed, most significantly in that Trump is no longer going to be in control of the DoJ in a few weeks. This isn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back, this is the last straw before the straw dispenser was relieved of power and no one had to accept straw from them anymore.

I think you're right, that this is actually a simple calculus about power and money (as it always has been and always will be). It's really the thing that grinds my gears when I forget myself: The duplicity and virtue signaling. The ad economy having brought back yellow journalism and endless emotional pleas. The internet being used in massive propaganda campaigns and allowing children and non-citizens a voice in forums that people perceive as our civic spaces -- even though they aren't -- because it is actually impossible to "moderate" the massive social media platforms (despite their promises). I like to think that I'm up on classical Stoic philosophy, but I still struggle sometimes to divorce myself from the fervor. It's so human.

My guess is that we are quickly approaching a point in time when culture will start to swing the other way, and the internet will become this thing that people don't take seriously, haha much like it was in the 90s. That, and some combination of that and censorship. And the tech monopolies absolutely will not survive the level of influence they have now, even if they think they are playing it safe by supporting a particular political faction which happens to be popular at the moment. I think things are going to change fairly rapidly in this direction because it turns out being connected constantly is actually pretty awful in most of the ways that count. Thankfully, however, it seems most folks understand this in a kind of unspoken, visceral way. The same sort of "self-policing" feeling you get when you've wasted 12 hours straight playing Skyrim. It just feels dirty.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#907

Post by thefucnjosh »

drewrv wrote: post #343
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…

I like to think about these issues as "website moderation policies" because that's all it boils down to. Almost all sites have moderation and for good reason. Besides all the spam and trolls good moderation helps build a community. That's why we're all here, and also why I'm selective about what subreddits I join. If a company is so powerful that their moderation policies are effectively censorship, then there is def…

Break-up doesn't stop collusion

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#908

Post by thefucnjosh »

jopsen wrote: post #667
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…

News papers have published letters from readers for many years. They've had editorial standards. I don't know if this is much different -- it's faster for sure, but crazy people haven't always had a huge platform. In fact, it's seems reasonable to let people say whatever they want so long as the audience is small. And I wonder isn't that pretty much how it works today? I doubt Twitter would ban my account, if I tried…

If you seem to serious about it, you should be more worried about the FBI & Secret Service than Twitter

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#909

Post by thefucnjosh »

diveanon wrote: post #877
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…

Hold platforms accountable for the radicals they create. Imagine how different the world would be if Facebook faced consequences for the genocide it helped facilitate in Myanmar. These companies will only ever respond to a loss of revenue, which is why you are seeing these bans now instead of 5 years ago. Twitter helped create this mess, and now people have died and our country was a few guards and a chair barricade…

this

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#910

Post by forgingahead »

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…

(Also because apparently I have to state this explicitly in every comment related to Trump: I do not support Trump, his supporters, the recent events that occurred at the capitol, etc etc)

It is a horrible state of affairs where you need this disclaimer in order for your ideas to be taken more seriously. Not directed at you personally, but as a descriptor of the situation.

Is it any surprise people are angry and furious and lashing out when they are dismissed solely on having differences of opinions from the establishment?

Post reply on HN