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

241–250 of 366 posts

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

#241

Post by FireBeyond »

dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #209
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.

When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused? Anyhoo, what's that got to do with twitter? Since when did they become the police?

There are literally dozens of incidents, on video, of Trump inciting violence, on a small and large scale.

From telling a crowd that they should beat up a heckler and he'd pay their legal bills (lol), to saying "maybe some of you second amendment types can do something about Hillary", and beyond.

There's no confusion.

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

#242

Post by rektide »

bogantech wrote: post #222
nonameiguess wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satan…

> don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?

I remember DADT as an easing of the status quo, which was at the time: we are watching & you better not.

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

#243

Post by haolez »

belter wrote: post #112
haolez wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your tone is not much different from his from my perspective (citizen of another country and I don't care about US elections).

What happens in the US elections, is more likely to have a bigger impact in your own country than your own country elections. Think of the major strategic implications of a pro-Russia or anti-democratic US administration for example...

I care about US policies, of course. I just don't think that Biden is different from Trump in any way that matters in the big picture.

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

#244

Post by Maursault »

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…

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. No other entity or group is bound by the 1st Amendment. And this is by the Founders' design, because extending the 1st Amendment to all entities and groups would in fact limit freedom.

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

#245

Post by ece »

SilverBirch wrote: post #197

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 a…

He's getting a billion dollars out of this, maybe that's playing a part too, to lend Musk some additional cover. Look, even the guy who banned him thinks differently now.

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

#246

Post by Ensorceled »

xdennis wrote: post #240
Ensorceled wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't Biden president when Trump was banned from Twitter?

No. He was banned on 8th of January and left office on the 20th.

Right. As a Canadian, I forgot the various delays between election, certification and inauguration.

I like the down votes for asking a question :-P

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

#247

Post by xdennis »

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.

> Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful?

Yes, just like there's one for left wing vs right wing. Trump was banned for violence for saying he won't attend the inauguration. Yet tweets calling for violence against the right are allowed. Many of them are years old.

You can search for yourself. Example:

* https://twitter.com/bobmorr32749439/status/15240565867375042... : "kill putin and trump and all the Republicans"

* https://twitter.com/gnarlyymarleyy/status/131111964852019609... : "can someone just assassinate trump so we can be done w this PLEASE"

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

#248

Post by BellLabradors »

Maursault wrote: post #244
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…

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesse…

Do you think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong?

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

#249

Post by dragonwriter »

bogantech wrote: post #222
nonameiguess wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satan…

> don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?

> Wasn't DADT instituted by the Clinton administration?

“Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue” was, as official policy when implemented, a relaxation of the pre-existing hard ban on homosexuality in the military—which was a prohibition with Ask, Tell-or-face-additional-punishment-for-concealment, and Pursue any indication from any aspect of a service members personal life that might tend to suggest homosexual orientation—to a ban on public homosexual conduct.

(In practice, it tended to be much less and much less consistent of a relaxation as suggested by the official policy.)

When people are talking about the repeal of DADT, what they really are referring to is the repeal of the longstanding prohibition of homosexuality in the military, of which DADT was the last and, at least in it's overt terms the mildest, manifestation.

Also, DADT was adopted because Clinton was trying to split the baby of fulfilling his campaign promise of lifting the ban and minimizing friction with the GOP as part of a strategy to minimize risk to higher priority legislative priorities.

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

#250

Post by ModernMech »

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…

You're leaving out the fact that those tweets were sent two days after an insurrection in which Trump used Twitter to target the Vice President with a mob. In the days thereafter, Trump was being urged to cool things down because tensions were still red hot. Instead, he refused to back off the very narrative that got people fired up enough to literally assault our democratic process. There was a legitimate worry that he was still using Twitter to signal to his supporters (who again, had just sacked the capitol) that they should attack the inauguration of Joe Biden next. That was the real and legitimate concern at the time.

How many insurrections are you willing to let Trump coordinate on your platform? Two? More?

Post reply on HN