Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An account was suspended

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 398 posts

Re: An account was suspended

#361

Post by morby »

MikePlacid wrote: post #265
morby wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were extremists on the site making calls to violence. A *private* entity deciding they don’t want to do business with a company because of that is neither censorship as a society would consider it nor is it problematic. More people and businesses should be willing to refuse business to entities that seek to harass, abuse, or promote violence to another group of people. What you’re worried about is governmental…

Your logic is flawed on many levels, and I will be glad to parse the errors after I have my breakfast and nothing more important emerges. Just one point for now: > What you’re worried about is governmental action and is not equivalent here. My kids tried to point me in the same direction. I’ve just pointed them to the router and said: I am a private citizen paying for Internet connection in this house. In 24 hours th…

This is an incredibly weak analogy because parents regularly limit access to sites for their children and it’s seen as a healthy treatment of the internet. I must say I’m completely lost on what you were intending to get across

Re: An account was suspended

#363

Post by morby »

MikePlacid wrote: post #318
morby wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were extremists on the site making calls to violence. A *private* entity deciding they don’t want to do business with a company because of that is neither censorship as a society would consider it nor is it problematic. More people and businesses should be willing to refuse business to entities that seek to harass, abuse, or promote violence to another group of people. What you’re worried about is governmental…

So. 1. There were bad people on the site, whom other people (you included) wanted to shut up. The site refused to do so. This speaks to the quality of the site, no? They refused to censor something while there was a strong push to censor it - that means they will probably not censor you , when your opinion will differ from the opinion of powerful people. That means that a person should rather support the site that do…

1. First of all I didn’t care about Parler, it was a dump doomed to fail. Second this point is purely opinion. Third, your notion of what free speech is in this country is flawed. calls to commit violence and/or riot are not protected free speech under the constitution

2. I don’t care if you choose not to do business with AWS. My comment is on your opinions on whether what AWS did were legitimate.

3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you? Stores will kick you out for being loud and obstructive. It happens all the time without legal repercussion. Actually the government does protect the rights of Facebook, Google, etc to host content by users that are calls to violence, harm, abuse, etc. there are many examples of this. The constitution will never tell a company it has to do business with an entity that hosts that content though. That’s what’s crazy about the duality of free market ideologues. They want business to have free reign but then hate when they exercise it? I’m having a hard time trying to grasp what you’re getting at here, actually.

My point about censorship is in juxtaposition to government censorship which is what society should be worried about. If a business doesn’t want to do business with people who break the law that’s entirely up to them.

Re: An account was suspended

#364

Post by NoGravitas »

djbusby wrote: post #282
breck wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclosure: I'm often wrong about these things. user: breck created: August 24, 2007

What? I don't care how old your account is. It's still first I've heard of a thing "everyone" is talking about. Which is a surprise right? Given how popular it is on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Looks like a solution to the problem that ActivityPub doesn't do enough to enable blockchain scams.

Re: An account was suspended

#365

Post by lapcat »

snailmailman wrote: post #362

Is the link dead? The OP, and the links in many of the top replies trying to provide more context are all taking me to twitter pages that say “Hmm…this page doesn’t exist.”

Yes, it appears that he deleted the old thread and posted a new thread with a screenshot of the old one:

https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1583163545268912129

"Deleting this thread for the usual reasons (don’t want to deal with noise and my point wasn’t clear)

FAQ:

•Account was not scripted. Everything was posted by a human

•A phone number was registered and a “Are you human” challenge was answered while posting

•Account is back

•What made me mad was the “After careful review” language. I felt lied to

•As always, never tweet"

The "Account was not scripted" comment goes against the assumption of a number of comments here defending Twitter's suspension.

Re: An account was suspended

#366

Post by Dylan16807 »

MikePlacid wrote: post #344
Dylan16807 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand - exactly! This is why I hate that Amazon stops me from using Parler, instead of not using it itself. You have twisted what I said past the breaking point. Amazon didn't stop anyone else from hosting or accessing Parler. They only refused to assist it themselves. > they know how to use VPN. Oh if VPN is allowed then it's significantly less of a problem. But you're still blocking it on the main network i…

>They only refused to assist it themselves. How is taking money from me is assisting me? Amazon was not financing Parler, no providing it any discount, afaik. Me - I was assisting my kids by providing them Internet for free. Want Facebook? Pay for it yourselves. >But you're still blocking it on the main network in a way that goes significantly beyond what Amazon did. What is the "main network"? What I was blocking ex…

> How is taking money from me is assisting me? Amazon was not financing Parler, no providing it any discount, afaik.

Getting paid to provide a service is still providing a service. If you don't like the word "assist" then whatever pick your own word. There's so many server providers that I don't think any of them should be obligated to do business. But ISPs and payment processors should be obligated, in my opinion.

> Me - I was assisting my kids by providing them Internet for free. Want Facebook? Pay for it yourselves.

> What is the "main network"? What I was blocking exactly? Call a provider, schedule an appointment, buy a WiFi switch... Yes, you could have missed an assignment or two, but nothing was blocked.

This part is a bit complicated when we're talking about all adults, but normally the head of household is in charge of the utilities and other people aren't expected to get their own. So that makes it the main network. If you want to filter the network in this situation, it's not unjustified, but you're definitely standing in between the two parties rather than refusing to interact yourself.

> Even more worrying (to me) - Amazon participated in a coordinated shutdown of Parler on app stores and hosting sites.

The app store takedowns are significantly less appropriate than Amazon's shutdown given their monopoly power.

Re: An account was suspended

#367

Post by IshKebab »

shadowgovt wrote: post #245
IshKebab wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offer reasonable options to get it reinstated of course.

I'm not sure what reasonable looks like when a system has 237 million daily active users and the reinstatement system itself would be intentionally gamed by adversaries. Do we have any examples to draw from operating at that scale? Due to the Musk purchase, we have a rare public disclosure of a major tech giant's internal workings where Twitter claims ( https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/07/twitter-s...…

> It's trivial to file an appeal, so (because the attackers are by no means disincentivized from appealing)

Well yeah, it's trivial to file an appeal if you just have to click a button, but obviously that's not what I was talking about. Have they tried literally anything else?

Solve difficult CAPTCHAs, send a scan of your passport, pay a small amount of money (e.g. $1), put a large amount of money in escrow like someone else suggested, allow other well-known accounts to vouch for you, etc. etc. etc.

There's a ton of things you could do. It seems like they've given up without trying any of them.

Re: An account was suspended

#368

Post by Dylan16807 »

Stupulous wrote: post #353
Aloha wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, Parler wasn't deplatformed. Parler could have rented a building, bought servers, racked and stacked those servers, networked them and gotten connectivity to the world. They didn't, they leased servers as a service from others, and then got burned when those services decided they were uncomfortable with the vitriolic anonymous speech being hosted on their hardware. Had they truly built their own plat…

And if their office building evicted them, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still buy some land and build their own office; it was their own fault for leasing office space as a service and getting burned. And if their ISP cut their access, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still start their own ISP; had they truly built their own platform, no ISP could have tak…

I don't think a power plant can refuse, and an ISP shouldn't be allowed to refuse.

And I don't think it's that hard to get office space with a real contract?

Re: An account was suspended

#369

Post by Aloha »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #368
Stupulous wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if their office building evicted them, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still buy some land and build their own office; it was their own fault for leasing office space as a service and getting burned. And if their ISP cut their access, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still start their own ISP; had they truly built their own platform, no ISP could have tak…

I don't think a power plant can refuse, and an ISP shouldn't be allowed to refuse. And I don't think it's that hard to get office space with a real contract?

I'd broadly agree with you.

There is a discussion to be had about what services should be available under common carrier or common carrier like terms, and what should not.

I'd argue that at least in the internet sphere, at least DNS, Access (either ISP or peering), and probably payments of some measure should be. I don't think PAAS systems ought to be, you can do without them, nor do I think hosted services (email, simple hosting, whatever) should be either.

We have an issue online where unfettered anonymous free speech is largely untenable in the current regulatory environment, I think that should be changed.

I also hold the view that unfettered anonymous free speech is broadly unworkable because it removes the feedback loop between speech and response to it - but that's a separate issue for society to work out, and shouldn't really be up to big corporations to fix (often poorly) on their own.

Re: An account was suspended

#370

Post by tshaddox »

lapcat wrote: post #359
tshaddox wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not all that concerned with what Twitter's rules supposedly are. If the only complaint here is that Twitter should be more clear about their rules and/or more consistent in enforcing them, then sure, I can agree with that (although there are obvious reasons why you shouldn't be completely clear about what your exact thresholds are for spam detection). I'm just talking about what I think looks clearly like spam, a…

> I'm just saying that one of those posting patterns looks very clearly like spam and the other very clearly does not appear to be spam. I disagree. Tweeting links without interacting in any way with other accounts is to me clearly not spam.

It’s all about age of the account, number of followers, and rate and origin of the automated tweets. Perhaps a way to think about it is to ask, if there was a new account created just to have a bot spam out links at a high rate, how would it look different than this account?
Post reply on HN