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

#301

Post by somenameforme » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #294

dublin wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither can the ideas. There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new,…

The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than…

You will find countless quotes such as the following among the founding fathers: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." - Thomas Jefferson

To imagine they would see the current scenario where the government and a handful of corporations are working in cahoots to suppress expression + drive self censorship on a scale unlike anything in our history, and go "Yip, working as intended." is just disingenuous.

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

#302

Post by epakai » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #266

kingkawn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He just said be peaceful once while repeatedly suggesting our election had been stolen and encouraging a large crowd to fight back. Meanwhile explicit efforts were being made to prevent the election certification. The subtext is readily apparent and its rather disgusting when people try to weasel in his token use of "peacefully".

To believe that was his intent you have to think Trump was incompetently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.

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

#303

Post by epakai » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

seanw444 wrote: post #153

Bud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 undercove…

"let them in" after they had already attacked officers and pushed through barriers. Please don't argue about this event if you are so unaware of what actually happened.

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

#304

Post by edanm » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #207

dnissley wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics.

I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with gay characters, and hate the idea of banning books. Not everyone who thinks differently than you do about free speech fits into a neat little caricature.

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

#305

Post by Maursault » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:25 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #301

Maursault wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Free Speech of the 1st Amendment, not only only applies to government entities, it is not absolute. Obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, threats and solicitations to commit crimes are not protected speech. They are examples of restricted speech, and according to you, there "is nothing more tyrannical than…

You will find countless quotes such as the following among the founding fathers: "The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." - Thomas Jefferson To imagine they would see the current scenario where the government and a handful of corporations are working in cahoots to suppress expressio…

> is just disingenuous

I strongly disagree. And Jefferson was not talking about ochlocracy, which is itself tyrannical. You think the Founders were unaware of commerce and business during their era? Why did they then intentionally limit government with the Bill of Rights, and not also have it restrict business and private citizens? Because doing so would create less freedom and less security.

Look at the text of the Amendment:

     Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

So you see, we don't need to extend the First Amendment to restrict corporations or private citizens, because they do not and can not make laws. Only Congress can make laws. What we have is a non-sequitor. The First Amendment, logically and rationally, can not possibly apply to companies like Twitter.

So if you do want to limit corporations with Free Speech, you can so so, that is what the Tenth Amendment is for.

Please stop assaulting the Bill of Rights with not very well thought out and fundamentally self-entitled and capricious whims. Only 2/3rd majority of Congress or of the state legislatures can change the Constitution. It is set as a high standard intentionally. Try to understand why. Because it's not about you and what you want, it is about the interests of everyone altogether and not everyone shares your shallow opinions. The Founders certainly didn't.

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

#306

Post by dragontamer » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #304

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.

Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with…

I'm certainly not accusing you of being a hypocrite. Largely because I don't know you.

I'm accusing my family, friends, coworkers, of being a hypocrite. Because I know them and have seen how their values have changed on this issue. They're for "free speech" and "against cancel culture" one day, and then for "banning LGBTQ+ cartoons from Netflix" the next day.

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

#307

Post by mindslight » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

dmatech wrote: post #300

mindslight wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There is another aspect to this - the benefit to the rest of the world from not being derailed by memetic diarrhea. Trumpism absolutely paralyzed the mainstream d…

That is largely the media's fault. They covered Trump 24/7 during his entire presidency like it was some sort of addiction. They could have covered anything they wanted (and they ignored numerous newsworthy stories). Perhaps we need a media with the self-discipline to look away from a car crash for 5 minutes.

I'm referring to grassroots discourse and good faith debate. It's awfully hard to discuss approaches to problems and weigh blue-paradigm approaches with red-paradigm approaches when you've got a sizeable contingent who's position is that the whole problem is "fake news" and by the way everyone who thinks it might be real is stupid.

And sure, the same effect caused the media to go crazy. That doesn't mean the entire effect can be lumped onto "the media". Destruction of the memetic environment via disinformation is real in and of itself.

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

#308

Post by phailhaus » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #230

phailhaus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which group is that? Can you name them? Who is their leader? Trump told the Proud Boys specifically to "stand back and stand by". They are an armed group. You are equating the Proud Boys with the amorphous "LGBTQ+ friends" community, and then saying that the latter "regularly riot". That's not tenable. I think you are deliberately engaging in bad-faith arguments. You are literally saying "gay people are the same as o…

Quoted post unavailable.

As others have noted, now you are clearly arguing in bad faith. Nowhere in Lightfoot's tweet did she mention Antifa. In fact, she called out "the LGBTQ+ community" specifically. So how did you jump to "she's telling Antifa to commit violence"? Gay people are Antifa now? You are all over the place.

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

#309

Post by causi » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

sascha_sl wrote: post #293

causi wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that relate to having a small subset of users to whom the rules don't apply?

Who is that? In my experience, Twitter is indiscriminately bad at being consistent with bans.

Prominent figures, mostly.

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

#310

Post by native_samples » Wed, May 11, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #306

edanm wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with…

I'm certainly not accusing you of being a hypocrite. Largely because I don't know you. I'm accusing my family, friends, coworkers, of being a hypocrite. Because I know them and have seen how their values have changed on this issue. They're for "free speech" and "against cancel culture" one day, and then for "banning LGBTQ+ cartoons from Netflix" the next day.

Usually, speech to children is considered separately.

I'd consider myself a libertarian free speech absolutist. I don't think anything should be banned from Netflix. I do think what teachers say in the classroom should be carefully controlled and parents should have a lot of control over what speech their children are exposed to more generally (e.g. filters on Netflix), because children almost by definition find it extremely difficult to separate truths from untruths and are much more impressionable than adults. Part of being a parent is deciding how to raise your kids and what beliefs to teach them. That's one reason totalitarian states always try so hard to indoctrinate children - it's easy, and they're a weak spot through which adults can be attacked in turn (see the sordid history of children being convinced to spy on their parents).

A big part of the fights in the USA at the moment and in culture more generally are about this sort of underhanded tactic - where one ideology that's losing the battle of ideas tries to short circuit it by indoctrinating children. Arguably that's where CRT came from. It's not a coincidence it emerged from academia, a place filled with impressionable teenagers.