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

261–270 of 366 posts

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

#261

Post by dragontamer »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #254
dragontamer wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.

Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that

> Elon Musk

So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of?

https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-...

> Jack Dorsey

Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss off their new overlords and actually make a racket about free-speech issues over there.

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

#262

Post by _-david-_ »

devmor wrote: post #114
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…

What nonsense. Donald Trump violated the twitter ToS on the daily, as well as local law. I'd be permanently banned from Twitter if I did what he did.

Plenty of people are not banned for breaking the rules. People literally calling for the death of people are on Twitter and their tweets still up. You may have been banned, but there is no guarantee.

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

#263

Post by cityofdelusion »

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…

That blog post looks pretty bad here in 2022. The rationale to justify the suspension is vague enough that anyone could be suspended for just about any reason. There is a lot of weasel phrasing in it ("...may also serve as encouragement" [according to who?], "...is being received by a number of his supporters" [who?], "...also being interpreted" [again, by who?], "...is being interpreted..." [by who?]).

It reminds me of forums I was on in the early 2000s; moderators would ban unsavory folks. How that actually happens is not "a rule is broken leads to a ban", but rather, rules are combed through when a ban is desired.

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

#264

Post by NDizzle »

ModernMech wrote: post #250
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…

Insurrection? The most armed civilian segment in the entire world, that didn't bring their guns to this fantastic insurrection event?! The same group who was let into various private chambers, for maximum effect, sometimes walking so close to single file that it would bring a tear to a second grade teachers eye...

If that's your definition of insurrection, there can be infinity more of them on my platform.

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

#265

Post by _-david-_ »

ece wrote: post #56
kyrra wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They problem is that Trump also said he wanted the protestors to be peaceful. We don't know what he intended. For you to pretend you do is nonsense. Now, where Trump is guilt is his actions after the events started. He should have within minutes been calling for it to stop and doing all he could to get police or national guard there to help. This is where I wish the impeachment investigation would have gone, sadly th…

The missing call logs say everything here don't they? To be on the phone with the police or national guard isn't going to happen on Signal.

The lack of proof is now considered proof?

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

#266

Post by _-david-_ »

kingkawn wrote: post #62
cloutchaser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mayor of chicago said yesterday overturning roe vs wade is a call to arms. Still on twitter.

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.

Trump explicitly asked his people to be peaceful in his fight metaphor which is more than you could say for many others.

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

#267

Post by _-david-_ »

spicymaki wrote: post #53
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.

That is a technicality. You cannot convict the President of anything (he controls enforcement of the laws, has pardon power, etc.). The senate would need to impeach him, remove him from office (which would never happen due to Republican opposition), then convict him as a private citizen (which would never happen due to political norms).

You can convict a president of a state crime, just not federal crime.

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

#268

Post by Lochleg »

cableshaft wrote: post #208
oceanplexian wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was a fairly average right-wing politician. Another Bush, or McCain, or Romney would have nominated the same Supreme Court Justices and had more or less identical policy. The few times Trump went against the grain he was overruled in the House and Senate, and ultimately he peacefully transferred power to the next president despite the rioting after he lost the election. So the implicit argument that he was some…

> I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned. One difference is Hillary Clinton officially conceded the morning after the election in 2016, meanwhile Trump to this day, a year and a half later, still insists he still won the 2020 election and that it was rigged. Those people you're referring to in 2016 also didn't storm the Capitol trying…

Hillary Clinton did not take the loss well despite the appearance, and she still uses the word stolen. Stacey Abrams seems to have a similar story. Trump sounds like a broken record and a sore loser, but the main reason I don't take him seriously at this point is that there's not much work being done to secure the next election. I don't agree with ballot harvesting, last-minute voting rule changes, or the execution with poorly-designed election machines. No one was ever proactive about this when it would have mattered though.

Trump did get shafted on his Twitter ban, and even people that didn't seem to be supporters looked at the justification and were left perplexed. It was not a statement of facts, but there was reading between the lines and assuming the worse without gathering information. Despite any accounting of what went down that day, it does seem like the response is extremely biased and lopsided. People held on vague charges of obstruction because their cell phone data showed them outside the building are still being indefinitely detained. Whether it's Trump or his so-called co-conspirators, if there was a crime, you would think the gears of justice would turn a little faster because there's plenty of motivation.

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

#270

Post by jimbob21 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #218
timr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?

Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or mo…

> The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison.

So instead of letting stupid people vote, you would prefer that their vote is manipulated and therefore cast for them? You would prefer a fascist state?

Post reply on HN