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

311–320 of 366 posts

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

#311

Post by TMWNN »

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.

>And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.

No. Maus was removed from an 8th grade curriculum list because of graphic depictions of sexuality/violence/language, but the school board sought alternative, age-appropriate works to teach about the Holocaust with (https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/01/27/why-did-ten...>). To say that Maus is "banned", and not any and every other book the board decides to not include on its curriculum, is inaccurate.

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

#312

Post by ece »

kyrra wrote: post #299
ece wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're story is outdated? See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-c... > Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any official records were tampered with or deleted, and it is well known that Mr. Trump routinely used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, to talk with other aides, congressional allies and outside confidants, bypassing the normal channels of presidential…

The next few paragraphs hint at his culpability, the DOJ should act based on all of the evidence:

> Some of the records that the Jan. 6 committee has received had been ripped to shreds and taped back together, reflecting the former president’s habit of tearing up documents. In addition, he removed more than a dozen boxes of presidential records from the White House when he left office, which the National Archives believes contained classified material, according to a person briefed on the matter.

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

#313

Post by netsec_burn »

xdennis wrote: post #256
netsec_burn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crime was inciting an insurrection. The president was not charged due to partisan politics, no president has ever actually been voted out by the Senate of their own party (correct me if I'm wrong), but historically this has been the most votes received from their party. It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture, including attempts to overturn the electi…

> You cannot let your users plot crimes. You can easily find tweets calling for trump and republicans to be killed on twitter from years ago and nobody bothered to ban those people so your statement rings hollow.

That is a tu quoque fallacy.

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

#314

Post by sg47 »

cityofdelusion wrote: post #255
pohl wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of how it works, though, innit: wannabe autocrat demagogue gets a bullhorn, uses it to leverage power via populist rhetoric, then shoves activist justices onto the bench — who, surprise, do their activist thing... That's the "very little connection" you're missing.

"Activist" is not a charitable description of any of the justices. It is widely accepted that _Roe_ was on unstable legal grounding, at best.

Would rogue be more acceptable?

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

#315

Post by cloutchaser »

epakai wrote: post #302
_-david-_ wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A weasel peaceful is still more than any democrat politician managed during BLM riots and Lightfoot now.

So, still one step behind many who are still on Twitter

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

#317

Post by notreallyserio »

phailhaus wrote: post #308
gadders wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's classic whataboutism and a deliberate failure to acknowledge context. I've noticed that a lot of folks on the right ignore context whenever possible.

And of course by typing this out I'm inviting them to say "how dare you I'm not right wing I just use their talking points and tactics and agree with their positions". Ok they won't say the last bits.

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

#318

Post by thatswrong0 »

_-david-_ wrote: post #262
devmor wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A sitting president with millions of followers has a lot more power to create actual harm via some random tweet than some random teenager with 3 followers. How is this not obvious?

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

#320

Post by dahfizz »

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…

Free speech is much larger than just the first amendment (if you can believe it, some people actually live outside the USA).

It is perfectly consistent to believe in free speech, support the first amendment, and also want platforms like Twitter to allow for the free speech of it's users.

Post reply on HN