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

Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#101

Post by tpoacher »

dmwallin wrote: post #96
marcusverus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." We don't need the government to govern free speech, but defending our rights…

It’s also abundantly clear that the men that founded our government believed that some powers are reserved for individuals and not for governments. The ability to restrict speech is one of these. > “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to…

You're saying people in power having the ability to censor free speech is free speech in itself? Uh, ok. Interesting.

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#102

Post by nikk1 »

disgu wrote: post #91
nikk1 wrote: post #74

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Popper also specifically said: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

A large part of Trump's message is that the election results are fraudulent, despite having no evidence to support that claim. Instead, he writes on social media to incite violence at our nation's capitol building... Now we are at risk of overturning an election based on a mere accusation - aren't we past the point where our president is willing to have a rational argument?

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#104

Post by amadeuspagel »

bsradcliffe wrote: post #53

You don't have guaranteed freedom of speech. You only have your speech protected from government infringement. Twitter is not the government, and you waived your rights in their terms of service. Giving society complete freedom is like asking for a body to exist without an immune system--cancerous ideas and movements will exist unchecked and feast on more of society. Stop. Saying. You. Need. More. Freedom.

Like most defenses of tech censorship, this is really an defense of any kind of censorship, whether by private companies or the government. If there's really no way of dealing with "cancerous ideas" other then censorship, then why entrust this vital job to tech companies?

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#105

Post by amadeuspagel »

dmwallin wrote: post #27

Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech. If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.

> Having the government govern free speech doesn't get you free speech.

I've seen this assertion here several times, always without any evidence, so I don't even know how to begin arguing against it other then vaguely gesturing in the direction of the postal service and the supreme courts decision to enforce the first amendemnt in company towns.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#106

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

Arnt wrote: post #97
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is that while it may not be entirely practical to replace Twitter or Facebook as the primary means of discourse, it is certainly more practical than replacing the government. Twitter and Facebook imposing their own flavors of information censorship is a lot less dangerous than the government doing it universally.

You're raising a strawman. Replacing government is not necessary, as Merkel proved by example. Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.

I think you have this backwards. Once a government establishes censorship there's no going back from it, and nowhere for private citizens to escape it. Private individuals or companies censoring their own platforms is far less serious since, ideally, there are many ways to legally escape it.

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#107

Post by souprock »

yalogin wrote: post #54

I don’t get the rationale used there. A president is not forced to use Twitter or any other social media. If they choose to use it then they have to abide by the rules of the platform, and the platform should impose the rules as they see fit. Forcing the platform to change the rules because of a special person is a slippery slope.

He does, uniquely, have alternatives:

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-circumvents-twitter-ban-wi...

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#108

Post by V-2 »

user-the-name wrote: post #86
V-2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can't yell fire in a crowded theater..." Is it a matter of free speech though? If you walk into a bank and say "load the bag with money, or I'll blow up the place", do you risk prosecution on the grounds of (abusing) free speech? After all what you did, essentially, was utter some words. (The bomb might never have existed). What if the government passed a law to the effect of "you can't say the banking system is…

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

Not necessarily - it depends on the context and the argument.

If I tell you that smoking leads to cancer, it's also a slippery slope type of argument: after all, having smoked 1, 100 or even a 1,000 cigarettes you'll still be fine, most likely.

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#109

Post by Arnt »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #106
Arnt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're raising a strawman. Replacing government is not necessary, as Merkel proved by example. Merkel's government was able to propose law changes and have them be voted on by the legislature. Replacing government was not needed.

I think you have this backwards. Once a government establishes censorship there's no going back from it, and nowhere for private citizens to escape it. Private individuals or companies censoring their own platforms is far less serious since, ideally, there are many ways to legally escape it.

Actually what I'm saying is that if the voters want either censorship or after-the-speech rules, then establishing that as part of the political process is much better than establishing it by having the same voters (in their capacity as Facebook's customers and audience) push Facebook to do the job. That it could be evaded is IMO irrelevant if it usually isn't. If people largely follow the law and use the legal process, then the law works.

Which you can see in Germany — people use the legal machinery to regulate speech on Facebook. Publish a swastika on Facebook and people will complain about you to the police (perhaps via Facebook), and the prosecutor will apply the law of the land. That you could evade it is true, that most people trust the law is significant.

Re: Trump’s Twitter Exile Spurs Opposition from Germany, France

#110

Post by user-the-name »

V-2 wrote: post #108
user-the-name wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

Not necessarily - it depends on the context and the argument. If I tell you that smoking leads to cancer, it's also a slippery slope type of argument: after all, having smoked 1, 100 or even a 1,000 cigarettes you'll still be fine, most likely.

> If I tell you that smoking leads to cancer, it's also a slippery slope type of argument

It is not. It is a statement of fact, proven by numerous studies.

Post reply on HN