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

Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 373 posts

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#131

Post by jtdev »

nonotreally wrote: post #125
jtdev wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not illegal, don't censor or moderate it in any way. More speech is better than less speech; Uncensored speech is in fact the antidote to the supposed problems that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. disengenuously claim to be solving.

Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer? Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?

That would fall into the "illegal" [0] category if people are in fact calling for violence.

[0] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#132

Post by [deleted] »

danaliv wrote: post #114
exabrial wrote: post #23

Be a free speech platform, how about that?

How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious?

[deleted]

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#133

Post by nonotreally »

jtdev wrote: post #131
nonotreally wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer? Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?

That would fall into the "illegal" [0] category if people are in fact calling for violence. [0] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

Sounds like we agree on this. I want to push you here though.

Did twitter contribute to the events on the 6th? Do they have any role to play?

Do you have to use the words "go and kill them" in order for it to be violence?

I'm trying to be genuine here, because I don't know. I will say it certainly feels like we saw the violence being induced for months ahead of time on twitter without explicit calls for violence.

Should we just allow this?

It's happening still. We have members of congress calling the election stolen. This is how more violence happens. It's a slow burn, but it's a burn.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#134

Post by marshmallow_12 »

krapp wrote: post #104
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's discrimination, unpopular as this may be, world leaders are also people. To fairly implement what you suggest, twitter must make a rule that political personalities must post political content while in office on a dedicated "world leader" handle

>To fairly implement what you suggest, twitter must make a rule that political personalities must post political content while in office on a dedicated "world leader" handle I struggle to see a problem with this. A political personality making political statements should do so from an account representing the office, for instance, @POTUS. That account should belong to the office, not the individual. Maybe state and c…

Yes. That is what i am saying. I think that's fair and good in theory, even if i personally don't think twitter should take that direction. For one thing, it will be hard to moderate and set clear boundaries.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#135

Post by dirtyid »

refenestrator wrote: post #65
loceng wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?

I was struck by the Chinese embassy that got banned a couple months ago. They said that their fight against radical islam is good for uighur women.. which is propaganda but also the exact same propaganda that western interventionists use all the time. One is ok, the other is not.

Also consider that Chinese narrative of Counter Insurgency / Deradicalization is the majority diplomatic position with plurality of UN support. The opposition to XinJiang block is not only smaller, but the "genocide" position is also currently the absolute minority position. It's a case where Twitter content policy goes out of the way to align with US propaganda.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#136

Post by krapp »

vxNsr wrote: post #100
weakfish wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to conflate freedom from persecution due to speech with freedom to say whatever, wherever. They are not the same.

Oddly, until recently they were. It only became different recently and obv xkcd popularized the idea, but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Everyone in the world has the right to free speech because they can literally talk and say whatever they want, but if the society that speech is spoken in doesn’t agree to allow that speech to be spoken freely (as in…

>but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech.

Given that every government in history which has recognized the concept of "free speech", including the United States, has regulated and even outlawed some forms of speech, and given that "consequence" is a natural, emergent property of societies and the fact that humans are social, emotional animals who don't process speech as mere passive data, one must come to the conclusion that free speech has never existed at any point in space or time.

That being the case, one wonders why everyone is so concerned now about something that, clearly, humanity has never needed up until this point?

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#138

Post by canoebuilder »

nonotreally wrote: post #128
canoebuilder wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you do that on the television, telephone, radio or in a newspaper in America?

I'm trying to find the limits of Freedom of Speech. Are we agreeing that there are in fact limits on Freedom of Speech?

Yeah, this has actually been thought of before.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#140

Post by Iv »

Twitter, decide what you are:

1. Are you an infrastructure? In that case you censor nothing but probably give users tools to manage their own censorship (like "remove suspected bot content" "remove tagged hate speech" options)

2. Are you a media? And in that case you have an editorial line, that you apply TO EVERYBODY. Or you state that world leader (or which world leaders) get a free pass. You make it explicit.

You can't be the first one for leaders and the second one for random individuals. Be coherent.

Let's be real, we are mostly talking about Trump here. To this day, I am not sure if it was just simple selfish greed or higher twitter instances aligning with his opinions, but there was an anomaly, an incoherence in your stance.

If you want to fix the cynical image you are trying to get, choose a coherent stance and stick to it, EVEN IF THAT MAKES YOU LOSE MONEY. Or accept that you are a cynical entity.

Post reply on HN