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

151–160 of 366 posts

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

#151

Post by bonestamp2 »

titzer wrote: post #136

Quoted post unavailable.

> There is no need for Twitter to signal-boost the idiotic shit this person says.

This is an important point. They could let him back without boosting his voice. In general, whether it's Trump or not, if the algorithm could boost fact checked statements only, that would be a win. I think both sides need better exposure to the facts that are typically not seen in their echo-chambers. We need to separate politics and facts if we want to sew this country back together. Facts are apolitical.

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

#152

Post by dahfizz »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #95
fsloth wrote: post #57

Before this turns into a culture-war-fest consider this: if Twitter is to be a global platform, it probably should NOT take political sides and if it is to censor anyone permanently, it should mostly adhere to local courts and similar entities. It's not about Trump or United States. It's about everyone else. World is a really messy place. It's not very easy generally to decided if in a political conflict one or other…

Twitter should enforce their ToS no matter who breaks them.

Should twitter maintain all it's old bans if it changes it's ToS, which Musk wants to do?

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

#153

Post by seanw444 »

Bud wrote: post #9
mccorrinall wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty. AFAIK Trump has not been convicted of any "illegal activity" in that regard.

He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv. The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.

Man it's a scary state of affairs when people unflinchingly support execution of a President that literally didn't incite a riot. And that they think it was a genuine attempt at a coup.

All I'm saying is, I think it's pretty obvious which side has most of the guns in this day in age. I don't recall seeing many armed that day. Actually I don't recall hearing about any. Except for, of course, all the obvious undercover agents watching it unfold. Who in their right mind attempts a coup without arms? I guess by having the police let them in the doors?

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

#154

Post by OJFord »

Brometheus wrote: post #88
vagrantJin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What damage?

Quoted post unavailable.

I changed my mind on it a bit when Biden popped up; I realised so much of what was funny/poked fun at in Trump were traits of Biden's (albeit less exaggerated perhaps) too, that really it's just a certain sort of American and sure maybe Trump's a bit of a caricature of it but it made him a bit less uniquely crazy how on Earth did that happen in my eyes.

Like Jeremy Corbyn's pretty far left wing, but politics aside he had a chance at being PM of the UK for a bit; maybe he would've seemed like a strange bumbling old man in other parts of the world, but here he's a recognisable type of person if you see what I mean, not massively unusual.

I just ended up thinking it was an attack on his (Trump's) character; that it worked so well outside of the USA because it's an unfamiliar one. But that's not fair, could even be called racist, and isn't on the basis of anything meaningful like actual policy etc. - which I know next to nothing about and seldom saw anything of substance reported on it; so I just disengaged from it really.

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

#157

Post by hansbo »

whitepaint wrote: post #141
andrewzah wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find this comparison strange. Yes, a restaurant should not be allowed to not serve Jews. But they should be allowed to not serve _a_ Jew, if the Jew in question breaks their rule of conduct. Like the case with Trump and Twitter.

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

#158

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 women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had."

I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe. Other than the fact that he got elected.

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

#159

Post by bambax »

belter wrote: post #47
natly wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt Thiel is some kind of central master mind behind all this. Musk seems quite independently driven and probably found this a necessary move with only minor chats with thiel (if any). I'm not sure Thiel has any more or less influence than Sam Altman or Paul Graham.

"Elon Musk Reacts To WSJ Report That 'Shadow Crew' Of Billionaires Including Peter Thiel Pushed Him To Buy Twitter" https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/05/26922872/elon-musk-wants... "A source who spoke to both men said that Musk thinks Thiel is "a sociopath," and Thiel considers Musk "a fraud."" https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relati...

> A source who spoke to both men said that Musk thinks Thiel is "a sociopath," and Thiel considers Musk "a fraud.

Yeah, they're perfect for one another.

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

#160

Post by whitepaint »

hansbo wrote: post #157
whitepaint wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find this comparison strange. Yes, a restaurant should not be allowed to not serve Jews. But they should be allowed to not serve _a_ Jew, if the Jew in question breaks their rule of conduct. Like the case with Trump and Twitter.

The point I was trying to make is that just because a company has a right to do something it doesn't mean it cannot be condemned by people.
Post reply on HN