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

351–360 of 366 posts

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

#351

Post by spacemanmatt »

_-david-_ wrote: post #332
epakai wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable…

Discrediting valid criticism because you don't feel consistency? Hmmm, I'm gonna call that right out.

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

#352

Post by mariusor »

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…

> if you aren't scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms [..]

I think instead of being scared of what allowing unethical speech can bring and trying to censor it, we should work towards ensuring that there is equal and opposing points of view, hopefully with better reasoned arguments. As far as I can tell the problem is that the people which are able to put those points of view "on paper" rarely bother to do so, because arguing against someone like Trump never encounters a good faith debate, and most of the times, it's so obvious that it's so wrong. But of course that it's not obviously wrong for a vast number of people, and explicitly stating it, might help them.

Expanding on this discussion see the exchange between Peter Boghossian and Laurie Penny in one of the classics of letter.wiki: https://letter.wiki/conversation/863

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

#353

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #333
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. But what is happening now isn't the traditional conservatism of 'low taxes, small government'. Look what happened to Liz Chenney, a traditional conservative if anybody can be called one, when she dared to claim Biden won the election.

Liz Cheney belongs to the neoconservative wing of the GOP just like her father and both of the Presidents Bush. All had no compunction with growing the size of government when it came to their policy of regime change abroad.

She didn't get censured for her spending or foreign policies, but because she dared to say out loud that Biden won the election and that the Jan.6 insurrection was a bad thing.

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

#354

Post by LightG »

_-david-_ wrote: post #327
LightG wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could get into the detail but I won't, it's a waste of time here. But the very denial of the election result, and all that stems from that, is enough. If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than most of us.

Lots of people deny the 2000 election. Lots of people deny the 2016 election. Lots of people deny the 2020 election. Why is denial of 2020 worse than any of the others? Stacy Abrams is still claiming her election was stolen. Denial of elections is quite common in the US.

* mumbles something about 'lots of people' are not the POTUS in the face of countless, countless court hearings to confirm that fraud didn't take place at scale and the result was valid.

* opines about the effect these continual denials have on a rabid, angry ... loser ... voter base.

* the result? Jan 6.

If you can't see that, good luck. It's f@cking so simple.

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

#355

Post by LightG »

Oh Lord ...

The last couple of years have been a breath of fresh air ...

The only time I notice Trump now is from his loser supporters posting Shorts on Youtube believing he'll make a come back.

Anyone who believes that taking him off twitter didn't stabilise the political temperature is in la la land.

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

#356

Post by dhzhzjsbevs »

netsec_burn wrote: post #313
xdennis wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Given were talking about the trump ban I'm not sure it is, he was banned, countless antifa accounts calling for Andy ngo's death were not.

There is a clear double standard, pointing that out isn't whataboutism it's simply calling bullshit on someone using the incite violence argument to say trump should stay banned.

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

#357

Post by dhzhzjsbevs »

netsec_burn wrote: post #226
dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

> It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture.

As a non American who watched the summer of 2020 riots in absolute awe I will never understand why people even mention the 6th. It just doesn't compare.

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

#358

Post by tomlin »

lalos wrote: post #286
wutbrodo wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. I don't know if you did this intentionally, but there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand here that prevents it from cohering logically. This isn't a case of "not contradicting"…

I meant to say this: - Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. - Now Musk goes out and says he would revert. - Even in the wild case (I personally think it is not the case) which Jack fervently would still believe that the ban should go on, why do it? why add drama to a business deal and say "no, Musk is wrong"? that would just sour the whole business deal that he would benefit from. Or why would anyone be anta…

  – Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban.
No. He's even commented on this. He was CEO at the time, with a board of directors. He didn't "enact" it any more than any CEO "enacts" every single decision at any company.

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

#359

Post by _-david-_ »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #351
_-david-_ wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable…

Discrediting valid criticism because you don't feel consistency? Hmmm, I'm gonna call that right out.

It is not valid criticism if you are only critical of an person because you are on the other team.

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

#360

Post by belter »

xdennis wrote: post #260
dncornholio wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can't change mind?

Especially when the facts turn out to be faked. Only one person died at the riot: a woman protestor who was shot by an African American cop. Only later, one person later died from overdosing on drugs and 3 died of natural causes. If we wait 100 years the casualty list will grow to 100%.

"A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people had lost their lives in connection with the Jan. 6 attack."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol...

Post reply on HN