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

191–200 of 366 posts

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

#191

Post by MrMan »

ModernMech wrote: post #100
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…

But this puts Twitter in the business of fomenting insurrection against the country it operates in. Trump was banned not for expressing morally ambiguous political positions, but because he fomented a mob to attack the Capitol and he used Twitter specifically during that insurrection to cause the mob to focus its attack on the Vice President. He was watching the events in real time on TV, and he was using Twitter to…

I think there are quite a few parties who would like to use twitter as a weapon of genocide / sedition / insurrection.

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

#192

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

A ban on a web site is usually driven by one or more violations of Terms of Service. Some of those Terms of Service are linked to criminal laws and the company wants to protect itself from being prosecuted, liable to damages, etc.

I dislike the use of the words "freedom of speech" when it comes to social media/web sites because uneducated people seem to think a ban is a violation of the 1st US amendment. Which is even sillier when a website allows users globally. I doubt the conversations will suddenly change to "freedom to violate ToS" but I feel like there is a better wording than "freedom of speech".

If a camping website banned content about Bigfoot because they wanted to and you posted something about Bigfoot and got banned, its not a freedom of speech issue, its more like a "No Shirt, No, Shoes = No Service" issue.

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

#193

Post by MrMan »

aceazzameen wrote: post #127
Gustomaximus wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, he's not silenced. He has a newsletter. But he isn't amplified to the heights that he was before either, and less likely to attract new followers. No one's reporting his newsletters. I'm not looking forward to seeing responses to Trump tweets across social and news media when he returns. There was no escaping it then. The guy adores the limelight from daily controversies and he's going to capitalize on it again.

he has a very well funded social media platform of his own 1

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

#194

Post by lkxijlewlf »

dahfizz wrote: post #152
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Should twitter update it's ToS so that it doesn't have to?

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

#195

Post by ricardoplouis »

hbosch wrote: post #171
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 imp…

The public's interest is a weak argument. I can say it's not in the public's interest to have someone who lost the popular vote in office at all, but that is only my opinion and doesn't speak to the original point.

I'm implying that the spirit of free speech should apply equally to all. If the president can come back after inciting violence, then everyone else should as well. It's not a selective principle that you get to choose how you follow.

If you don't want violent rhetoric to spread then yes, limiting free speech and universally applying those rules is a viable path to achieve that.

Otherwise, you create a regulatory environment that only applies to you if you don't have the power, political capital, or fanbase to yell loud enough in your favor.

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

#196

Post by michaelbrave »

zaroth wrote: post #74
spicyusername wrote: post #25

Quoted post unavailable.

I think anyone pitching the “paradox of tolerance” needs to understand recursion a little better, or perhaps try to understand how their argument looks in a mirror to someone who disagrees with their stated position.

even recursive loops have a point of exit, in this case it would look something like

if ("promotes violence" && "has not been receiving violence") { print ("this person is intolerant") } else if ("has been receiving violence" && "promotes violence") { print ("this person is oppressed and is trying to oppose that") } else { print ("this person is not within the scope of intolerance") }

All rights have limits, often rights exist at the expense of other potential rights, our ancestors/predecessors and us have decided what those should be, how they should be handled and what exceptions/allowances should be made. Free speech is one thing but in twitter's particular case is bumps up against property laws as twitter although open to the public is private property. Similarly slander laws exist, and similarly there are other limits of speech that are not protected by the 2nd amendment particularly categories like: incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. These exclusions always were intended to deal with the intolerant (meaning those who would perform or incite violence unprovoked). Can it be leveraged to silence opposition, yes our laws are not as air tight as they should be especially on the enforcement end of things, but was that the case here? I don't think so, this is a pretty cut and dry case of incitement.

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

#197

Post by SilverBirch »

Honestly, this entire thing is ridiculous. The logic behind Dorsey's comment on this is essentially "I don't think Trump should've been banned for his actions but I didn't feel comfortable saying so at the time. So I banned him, waited for the fuss to die down, and now I'm going to change my mind because I've got political cover".

The only good thing I think that will come from this deal is that Musk will be direct about his absurd position where Dorsey was two-faced. It's absolutely wild to see Dorsey essentially publicly admit that he disagreed with most of his own decisions running twitter.

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

#198

Post by MacsHeadroom »

Veen wrote: post #147
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Haven't you heard?

The center is the right now and the right is "hard right."

Clearly this indicates a political shift to the right. /s

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

#199

Post by NDizzle »

jwond wrote: post #168
NDizzle wrote: post #130

Take a look at the two tweets that twitter used to justify the perma ban of Trump. It's weak, at absolute best. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated…

Wow, I didn’t realize those were the tweets he was banned for. That blog post includes some pretty twisted mental gymnastics to try and explain how those tweets justify their decision.

Correct. I'm glad I reached at least one person before I am downvoted to flagged for pasting twitter's own reasoning. Again.

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

#200

Post by LightG »

whitepaint wrote: post #148
LightG wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because that's exactly what I just said...

Good grief...

Post reply on HN