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

EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#151

Post by carey »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #150
carey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you think Twitter was lying in https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... , that last tweet was the call to violently disrupt the inauguration in POTUS’ absence that was the final straw.

Do you have a screenshot? Maybe Twitter posted it? > “that last tweet was the call to violently disrupt the inauguration in POTUS’ absence” What you are saying is not the last tweet from Trump I saw.

It’s in the blog post that I linked to, which quotes the tweet that you seem to be referring to.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#152

Post by mc32 »

mumblemumble wrote: post #27
mc32 wrote: post #4

I see. Hold your ground for free speech till... Ok, we were kidding we were just bluffing. Go ahead. We don't care. We support corporate censorship now full throat. It's for the best. We're looking out for your own good. I mean really, so you know it was in the government's purview to hold Snowden, Manning and Assange accountable to what's within their rights too. Nice to see you sway with the wind there EFF. Guess B…

Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

This is meaningless.

Of course on the USSR you were free to rattle off “Lenin was a Traitor” in front of the Kremlin, but you had to face the consequences of that.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#153

Post by Brian_K_White »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #147
Brian_K_White wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are getting the teeniest taste of being the wrong color in the only grocery store in town that are mysteriously always out of everything, or trying to buy a wedding cake while gay. Except they're not. I would love the perfection of that, but all they're getting is the same treatment on-line as if they did the same screaming at the other customers and urinating in the isles in a grocery store. They are s…

I know more than one decent person who leans conservative in their politics. I am sorry that you have never met good people of a different political leaning in your life. Hope it gets better for you.

The existence of #notallconservatives has no bearing, including no invalidating bearing, on this point.

Decent #notallconservatives, if they actually were so, could and should have policed their own indecent cousins. If they didn't, then they are complicit.

Any decent #notallconservatives didn't get kicked off of any other platforms in the first place. They lost nothing.

There is no cruel unfair intolerance to cry over here, any more than my comment getting a downvote, which favor you will note I didn't return, as long as we're trying to talk about intolerance. ;)

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#154

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #153
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know more than one decent person who leans conservative in their politics. I am sorry that you have never met good people of a different political leaning in your life. Hope it gets better for you.

The existence of #notallconservatives has no bearing, including no invalidating bearing, on this point. Decent #notallconservatives, if they actually were so, could and should have policed their own indecent cousins. If they didn't, then they are complicit. Any decent #notallconservatives didn't get kicked off of any other platforms in the first place. They lost nothing. There is no cruel unfair intolerance to cry ov…

This isn’t Twitter. We don’t have to communicate with hashtags.

You have made your point. Have a nice rest of the day.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#155

Post by jelliclesfarm »

carey wrote: post #151
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a screenshot? Maybe Twitter posted it? > “that last tweet was the call to violently disrupt the inauguration in POTUS’ absence” What you are saying is not the last tweet from Trump I saw.

It’s in the blog post that I linked to, which quotes the tweet that you seem to be referring to.

This is from the blog [..]On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”[..]

I don’t see what you are reading from it. Do you want to translate?

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#156

Post by carey »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #155
carey wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s in the blog post that I linked to, which quotes the tweet that you seem to be referring to.

This is from the blog [..]On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inaugur…

In context, Twitter sees this as encouraging the violent minority of his supporters to do whatever they like at the inauguration, since he will not be there, only Pence, Biden and Harris.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#157

Post by guilhas »

RobLach wrote: post #99
fangpenlin wrote: post #12

Their response to Parler's shutdown situation will determine my respect to EFF

Surely the EFF will say that Amazon shouldn't be forced by the state to provide their services to a company they don't want to.

The problem is that this companies leaders are not independent. They go to summits/foruns/events with politicians, think tanks and foundations, and they subscribe to this other organizations rules. So at some point this actions move from freedom to monopoly?

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#158

Post by nx20593 »

disown wrote: post #130
colanderman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sort of have to be. In the fight to preserve electronic freedoms, freedom from censorship and freedom to operate a service as one pleases come at odds with each other in cases like this. If instead, the government had confiscated Parler's domains, or enjoined Apple, Google, and Amazon from booting them, I think EFF's response would (rightly/expectedly IMO) be very different. As an EFF member I think they made th…

> As an EFF member I think they made the right call here. They didn't. They chickened out. The ACLU was more vocal in its opposition to censorship. That should show how cowardly the EFF is being right now. You falsely made it seem like EFF only deals with or is concerned with government "suppression". That isn't true. Most of EFF dealings is with corporate "suppression". Under normal circumstances, EFF would have bee…

This "looking the other way if it's my guy" attitude towards violence as reached an unacceptable level. The Left and Right are both equally guilty in my view. You want to stop Systemic Racism, then end the fscking war on drugs. You want to stop White Supremacists, then perhaps we need to teach our children the simple universal spiritualist ideas such that people are to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. People with money and power WANT Americans at each other's throats. It diverts the attention from how they have sold out our manufacturing base and jobs for short term profits.

Re: EFF's response to social media companies' decisions to block Trump’s accounts

#160

Post by AstralStorm »

mc32 wrote: post #152
mumblemumble wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

This is meaningless. Of course on the USSR you were free to rattle off “Lenin was a Traitor” in front of the Kremlin, but you had to face the consequences of that.

Sure, the consequences of soft endorsing violence on Twitter are really huge; like being denied from using or just posting on Twitter.

Clearly not comparable to being put in a jail, and losing a job as well as future access to some jobs.

Post reply on HN