Live data from Hacker News

Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

axios.com

81–90 of 366 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#81
post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

I think that mob incitement is an excuse used for selective enforcement of the rules. If you're on the left, you're clearly operating under different rules: https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864

Lori Lightfoot is neither on the left (she is squarely a centrist), nor the President of the United States claiming that the election was stolen.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if they're trying to bait him away from Truth Social (his failing competitor platform)

No bait is needed, Trump just needs the right excuse to backpedal and not lose face.

Not even. Just ignore that you said you won't come back.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#86

Quoted post unavailable.

My anxiety when reading news online or listening to radio went noticeably down when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, and I don't live in the US. I entirely agree with you.

I think this is the fault of the news media exploiting peoples anxieties for clicks and engagement. They made everything seem like some kind of catastrophe.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#87
It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech.

The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with being able to spread harmful bad faith speech freely on an algorithmic social media site - or any place for that matter.

It's a tricky thing for which there are no real correct answers. What I do know is that socially and politically we have several unwritten rules about what, where and how to speak about things because not abiding by those rules results in things as minor as slight embarrassment to as severe as physical violence. That is to say, things can spiral out of hand and the usefulness of speech deteriorates if some standards are not kept.

Twitter shouldn't be the judge of what an American president can say, because the American people should have already filtered out a person of such low integrity from gaining a position in such a high public office. All this time I've felt amused by how much our American friends can talk about what should or shouldn't Twitter do, but seemingly never discuss how they can as a society make sure that the executive office doesn't get filled by someone who brought their entire democratic process to disrepute.

To conclude, I think if you aren't scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms then I see no reason why a Dorsey doesn't think Trump should be allowed to come back. The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had. Not all political turmoil is scary for those who are safe from politics.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#89

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

Yes. The rich have a different set of rules everywhere.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Trump should have been banned before even running for office? Oh is that how it works now in Silicon Valley? Can we just ban all right wing politicians from twitter so they don't get elected? Sounds like democracy!

[flagged]
Post reply on HN