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

Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#141

Post by jdavis703 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #56
jdavis703 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they going to ban politicians from discussing budget charts or crime statistics in public debates if they decide that it's misleading with no objective basis? I’m assuming the “government database” is VEARS, which is using raw, unverified data. It would be like if someone took NextDoor or Shotspotter reports to derive crime statistics.

To be fair to VAERS, a doctor needs to fill it out, and the doctor is not paid to do so. It’s not exactly a user-submitted database.

I’ve also complained to my doctor about undocumented “side effects” from various non-vaccine drugs.

Even though it seemed weird he immediately suggested switching to something else.

Doctors don’t apply a robotic “this could never happen” approach when dealing with unexpected side effects, regardless of whether there’s empirical evidence for them or not.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#142

Post by gpu_explorer »

hammock wrote: post #128
gpu_explorer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if…

>: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor That doesn't apply? The common definition of censor is not exclusive to government.

Even if we use the definition in sense 2 (and I definitely don't think we should) enforcing a contract is not censorship. As far as I am aware, Marjorie Taylor Green was over the age of majority and of sound mind and body - and therefore fully capable of agreeing to the terms of a written agreement - when she agreed to the Twitter terms of service.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#143

Post by gethoht »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

I don’t care what she said, it is not the job of private businesses to censor elected officials. And yes, I know they can but that does not mean they should .

It was only her personal account that was suspended. The account tied to her position in government is still there @RepMTG.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#144

Post by spicyusername »

Sometimes the right course of action doesn't fall neatly inside a simple set of rules or inside a binary "this is good, that is bad" narrative. Sometimes very similar circumstances need to be handled in very different ways because of subtle nuances in their contexts. This is why lawyers and philosophers will never be out of work and why we should all be wary of borrowing McPhilosophies from internet memes and Twitter hot-takes without putting in the effort and research to think through the issues for ourselves.

If you find yourself reacting to this news with too neat and tidy of a response, that is a good sign that you may need to spend some time trying to understand and empathize with alternative perspectives and that you may need to spend some time trying to understand why this is such a complicated (and consequential) issue for the United States government and Twitter to navigate.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#146

Post by gpu_explorer »

neartheplain wrote: post #126
ianleeclark wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If social media is going to be the default communication medium I don't think this is really true. Most people in the US don't use Twitter. Not to mention that many users are following entertainment based users or aren't fully consuming posts by those they follow. Twitter is just an additional stream/supplement to town halls, email lists, websites, news coverage, etc.

Twitter use is near-ubiquitous among journalists, politicians, and those who wield or seek to gain influence. Corporations fire people, companies terminate business deals, and universities expel students based on what gets said on Twitter. News agencies find leads and shape stories using Twitter. Most of what gets said on CNN, NBC, or Fox News is filtered through the lens of writers who use Twitter and care about how…

> Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad press releases.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad interviews.

> Political fortunes can swing on bad comments at private dinners that become public.

As they should.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#147

Post by bcrl »

Veen wrote: post #27

Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me, but she's a loon with a democratic mandate. If social media is going to be the default communication medium, then perhaps it needs regulation to clarify its relationship with elected officials.

They don't have to rely on Twitter. Politicians have office budgets which include money for sending out mailings to their constituents. Most politicians also have their own email lists to which they send out updates and run polls. There are plenty of venues outside of Twitter to contact constituents.

Twitter itself is under no more of an obligation to publish material from a politician than a newspaper is. Both are corporations that operate under obligations to their shareholders. If a politician really wants to publish something on Twitter, they can pay for promoted ads just like they can with a newspaper. Expecting social media platforms to promote their message for free is hopelessly naive and does not match how democracy has worked for centuries. Sure, newspapers have published political messages for free via editorials and stories, but they are not obligated to do so. Getting the message out has always required time from volunteers and/or money towards supporting the cause.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#148

Post by amusedcyclist »

poszlem wrote: post #40
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think they should be held to higher standards than others then?

I think it should be the voters who decide what the standars are, not random corporations.

Voters decide who sits in congress, not who gets to talk on twitter, thats a job for twitters employees

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#149

Post by gpu_explorer »

mindslight wrote: post #139
gpu_explorer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if…

You are painfully wrong on the definition of censorship. Censorship is the act of a third party intermediary controlling the content of speech, no matter who that third party is. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "censor" as "a person who supervises conduct and morals". They go on to use the word "official, which you might think implies bona fide government. But they define "official" as "one who holds or is inves…

> Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion.

It's absolutely appropriate to reference the Bill of Rights. As a collection of individuals, Twitter is legally entitled to both freedom of expression and freedom of association. That said, Twitter also has every right to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach of contract.

> The scale Twitter operates at is much closer to that of government than that of the People.

I'm sorry, but this argument is objectively false. You cannot compare the power of Twitter to the nearly unfathomable power of the three branches of the US government. Twitter can't levy taxes. Twitter can't declare war. Twitter can't prosecute you and/or put you in jail. Twitter simply doesn't have these powers.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#150

Post by bko »

alamortsubite wrote: post #135
bko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the government is in talks w/ the social media about setting their policy, and they use that policy to ban other politicians, is that not censorship?

If the government leans on Twitter to silence a user, then yes, that would be censorship. There is no evidence this has happened, however; the substack post you referenced is drivel.

The White House admits that they're in regular communication with social media platforms and are flagging problematic posts on facebook. What about that is drivel?

> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.

> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

Post reply on HN