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

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 366 posts

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

#141

Post by whitepaint »

andrewzah wrote: post #129
whitepaint wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this is not a widely held opinion? This view should be a norm. Do not ban a president of a country on social media. Period. When a private company decides to do so, it should be profusely condemned by everyone. Should Putin's twitter be banned as well?

Politicians don't have the right to be on a private website. They already have official channels to communicate. Twitter has every right to ban Putin, or Trump, or Duterte, etc.

Where did I say that politicians have the right to stay on a private website? Yes, Twitter has the right to ban people. As do restaurants not serve certain people. But if a restaurant decides to not serve Jews let's say, I will obviously condemn them.

If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter when they banned the president.

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

#142

Post by chmod600 »

originalvichy wrote: post #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 bei…

"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"

There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obviously: bad things can become politically-correct, too.)

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

#143

Post by kingkawn »

belorn wrote: post #106
kingkawn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone in American politics uses fight metaphors. Not every political movement erects a gallows outside the Capitol and then breaks and enters to look for legislators and the Vice President to hang.

Not every cause has the same effect, which is one reason why the law often looks into intent. If the speaker intend to incite violence then it's a call for violence, and if it is not then it's a metaphor. It is only by going through the context and the environment of a statement that intent can be subjectively judged.

Yes, we all know Trump knows how to weasel his way out of anything.

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

#146

Post by spicyusername »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #110
spicyusername wrote: post #25

Quoted post unavailable.

Removing him only removed him from your conversation. He is not silenced. Same with banning the Trump reddit forums, what this achieved was to shift them to their own platform where they, no longer hear opposing views or being challenged. And to me it seems worse than ever in their views and speech, shockingly though sometimes. Using something like the Paradox of tolerance logic is dangerous itself. People love to fi…

> this smells like something along those lines to me.

> is full of grey zones

That is exactly why it's called a "paradox". We all recognize that we cannot allow tyrannical actors to act unchallenged, but the act of challenging their behavior itself often can be seen as a form of tyranny.

This is why we need an entire system for interpreting and enforcing the laws in a nuanced and careful way. The world is too complex for a simple system of rules to work without consideration to the context of each individual circumstance.

Generally, I agree with what you're saying, though. Sometimes it does feel like all paths lead to a consolidation of power, no matter how well intentioned things began.

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

#147

Post by Veen »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #125
unsupp0rted wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the political climate shifting hard right. Twitter un-banning Trump isn't an indicator of a political climate shift, although perhaps a social shift, or perhaps simply a one-off random Elon shift.

> I don't see the political climate shifting hard right. Supreme court repealing Roe v. Wade, Don't say gay bill, restrictions of voter rights, denial of 2020 election loss among top leaders in the GOP, the list goes on... Not to even to mention the likelihood of conservatives gaining control of the senate and perhaps house in the midterms. This is what a hard right political climate shift looks like. So, the unbanni…

Conservatism isn't a hard-right ideology.

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

#148

Post by whitepaint »

LightG wrote: post #120
whitepaint wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this is not a widely held opinion? This view should be a norm. Do not ban a president of a country on social media. Period. When a private company decides to do so, it should be profusely condemned by everyone. Should Putin's twitter be banned as well?

Yes. I still view Twitter (back when I was on it) as a private business. Like a pub. Chat rubbish, cause trouble, get thrown out. At the time of the elections, do you remember all the memes about how Twitter was just a tiny portion of voters and that the vast majority were not even on Twitter? Twitter is not a town square or a centre of free speech. It's a small dive bar in the corner of the city. Cause trouble, get…

Ban everyone you disagree with. Yeah, that will lead to great things.

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

#149

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

prezjordan wrote: post #81
theandrewbailey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#150

Post by stephencanon »

cloutchaser wrote: post #52
stephencanon wrote: post #39

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!

Yes? The vast majority people who get banned on Twitter or FB are banned before even running for office, whether they are left or right or center. Why should Trump be different?
Post reply on HN