Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by hbosch » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

ricardoplouis wrote: post #61

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.

If the president is publicly instigating toward North Korea on your platform, arguably you have the responsibility to allow people to witness what's being said. In the same way, CNN arguably has the responsibility to broadcast it if he was recorded by their cameras.

It's probably not in the public interest to broadcast every person's incitations of violence or bigotry, but the president? Yes. Certainly you're not implying you should be treated exactly the same as the president of the United States...

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

#172

Post by tomlin » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #155

First thing when i open the webpage, is them asking me for my email address Seriously, web developers, stop it!

You mean marketers. Marketers have become developer's bosses in a lot of agencies.

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

#173

Post by notreallyserio » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

Schopenhauer01 wrote: post #145

spicyusername wrote: post #25

Quoted post unavailable.

Is it OK to be less tolerant towards minorities causing violence? Certain groups do it lot more than others.

Certain groups are successfully prosecuted at a greater rate but that doesn't mean they cause more violence.

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

#174

Post by michaelbrave » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

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…

Trump wasn't banned for being a crook but for inciting violence and repeatedly breaking the terms of service. He got away with far more instances of breaking the ToS than any normal person would.

I know there is a fine line between things like Freedom Fighters/Extremists/Terrorists depending on how it's viewed and who is viewing it. Similarly inciting violence could be muddled away with enough rhetoric or only selectively enforce, as governments often do.

Likely the best solution is to update the laws around social media use or extend the previous laws to include those instances and then apply it equally to all.

All of that said though, Trump very much repeatedly broke the ToS and rightfully deserved to banned before he became president.

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

#175

Post by dnissley » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #142

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? (Obvio…

The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.

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

#176

Post by tomlin » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #163

lalos wrote: post #5

It is interesting how much influence Peter Thiel has on the main players of social media: via Facebook as an early investor and ex-board member and via Twitter with his ex-coworker from Paypal days Musk. He’s very explicit in his book about the power of monopolies and now you see this consolidation of social media companies under a specific group of closed people. WSJ reported Thiel being involved with Musk on this t…

You don't need any conspiracies theories to explain why Dorsey is a supporter of free speech. Dorsey has always been part of the crop of Enlightenment-liberal tech CEOs, which includes Larry, Sergey, and Zuckerberg. It got memory-holed pretty quickly, but these guys were dragged kicking and screaming into the new illiberal consensus that it was their job to decide what users are allowed to talk about. At a certain po…

This take should be framed and pinned to the top. Of all the hinged/unhinged comments, this one tries hard to be principled in fact. It's getting tiring hearing about how this heir to an emerald mine was going to enslave us all.

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

#177

Post by sc90 » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

a3w wrote: post #128

sc90 wrote: post #118

Should there be a Penal/Criminal Code for Social Media violations rather than indefinite bans? Edit: By the respective tech companies not something enforced by any branch of government.

In germany, there is. What the courts will make of those laws is still TBD. Regimes do copy these laws to put anti state opinions behind bars, though. It's hard to find a middle ground, mostly depending on culture and acceptable offenses by both believers in a message and feelings of people hurt by offensive proposals or hateful speech.

Not government/court enforced but by the respective companies.

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

#178

Post by Georgelemental » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

Brometheus wrote: post #88

vagrantJin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What damage?

Quoted post unavailable.

Trump was a laughingstock in Western Europe. The rest of the world mostly either liked him (Bolsonaro in Brazil, Modi in India, Taiwan, etc) or was neutral. Opposite is true with Biden now: great relations with Western Europe, but Saudi Arabia won't take his calls

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

#179

Post by notreallyserio » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:19 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #113

antiterra wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you exactly where people say ‘call to arms’ as anything other than idiomatic call to action?

Well I think to be fair-minded if "call to arms" is idiomatic, then you have to assume that "stand back, and stand by" is as well. You can't arbitrarily take one literally and one not. If they both idiomatic, then they are both equally harmless.

One of those phrases is told to groups of people that regularly worships guns in public. The other is not. Context counts for a lot.

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

#180

Post by vlunkr » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:19 PM UTC

Seems like they're making slightly different arguments. Dorsey is saying it was wrong to permenantly ban, rather than suspend Trump.

He's also saying it was a business decision, and it shouldn't have been. Honestly I don't know what that means. Every decision Twitter makes is a business decision. He violated the rules repeatedly and got away with it, I think it was absolutely the right choice.