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

Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 218 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#121

Post by angelzen »

tjr225 wrote: post #65
mark_l_watson wrote: post #54

No matter what their politics are, I would hope that all reasonable people can condemn cancel culture, regardless of the political alignment of the person being cancelled. I get a lot of value from Twitter because I follow a few awesomely interesting people, but I could probably get the same effect by bookmarking their blogs. People should have access to all information, and filter for themselves what is trash. I don…

Marjorie Taylor Greene is entitled to create her own Twitter. Not to use someone else’s Twitter.

This leads to 2 twitters, one for each side of the political aisle. Filter bubbles enabled by social media are already bad enough, a complete fracture of the public space along political lines is a distinctly dangerous idea.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#122

Post by gpu_explorer »

hammock wrote: post #62
gpu_explorer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Not sure they have to. Gjsman affirmed their right to freedom (they CAN), but would prefer that they exercised that freedom in a certain way (they SHOULD). Believe it or not, government regulations don't have to be the solution to every little thing. See saurik's comment below for more.

I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract.

Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if Twitter terminated her account because she was a woman or a person of color or a member of a protected class.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#123

Post by dragontamer »

anigbrowl wrote: post #120
dragontamer wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Twitter had shared blocklists for example, it would be easier for people to coordinate that kind of signaling. But Twitter doesn't. Hacker News doesn't. Reddit doesn't. All three of these large Social Media sites require moderators to police the actions of their users. This isn't new or exotic, this is just how the web typically works. Forums, Usenet, Mailing lists, IRC, BBS, its always been like this. If you wa…

Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to.

> Well nothing is preventing them from implementing such features if they want to.

There's nothing preventing you from implementing your own social network with those rules.

Hacker News is a forum for business ideas and web-based technologies after all, built around an angel fund / venture capital slant.

But I'm trying to tell you that you'll end up relying upon user-based moderation for many cases: including simple cases like spam from new users or VPNs. Maybe even IP-based blocking as certain unsavory groups of people tend to cluster around certain IP addresses.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#124

Post by hairofadog »

psyc wrote: post #99
hairofadog wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your conversation with your mom is private communication, while your tweets are broadcast communications.

You've stated a fact. Why does this fact make Twitter the speaker whose free speech rights take precedence?

I think that fact is pertinent, but it may also be helpful to think of the distinction between a publisher and a technology. If I write a book called “Vaccines Kill and Trump is Still President”, it feels fair and correct to me that Random House has the right to pass on publishing it but that nobody could stop me from reading it to someone over the phone or mailing it to someone.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#125

Post by alwayseasy »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #56
jdavis703 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they going to ban politicians from discussing budget charts or crime statistics in public debates if they decide that it's misleading with no objective basis? I’m assuming the “government database” is VEARS, which is using raw, unverified data. It would be like if someone took NextDoor or Shotspotter reports to derive crime statistics.

To be fair to VAERS, a doctor needs to fill it out, and the doctor is not paid to do so. It’s not exactly a user-submitted database.

That's simply not true. A doctor can fill it out for you but can't refuse if you ask him to. You can also do it yourself online... it's the main reason people are spamming the database.

Here is the direct link: https://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index.jsp

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#126

Post by neartheplain »

ianleeclark wrote: post #64
Veen wrote: post #27

Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me, but she's a loon with a democratic mandate. If social media is going to be the default communication medium, then perhaps it needs regulation to clarify its relationship with elected officials.

> If social media is going to be the default communication medium I don't think this is really true. Most people in the US don't use Twitter. Not to mention that many users are following entertainment based users or aren't fully consuming posts by those they follow. Twitter is just an additional stream/supplement to town halls, email lists, websites, news coverage, etc.

Twitter use is near-ubiquitous among journalists, politicians, and those who wield or seek to gain influence. Corporations fire people, companies terminate business deals, and universities expel students based on what gets said on Twitter. News agencies find leads and shape stories using Twitter. Most of what gets said on CNN, NBC, or Fox News is filtered through the lens of writers who use Twitter and care about how Twitter will react. Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets. Most Americans may not use Twitter, but I would say most are still affected by it, whether they know it or not.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#127

Post by quux »

quux wrote: post #35
loourr wrote: post #22

[flagged]

What's the hospitalization rate and death rate in NY? A large part of why those numbers are so low are vaccines, in addition to masking and omicron being less virulent.

In case you need a citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/30/nyregion/omicron-covid-ny...

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#128

Post by hammock »

gpu_explorer wrote: post #122
hammock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure they have to. Gjsman affirmed their right to freedom (they CAN), but would prefer that they exercised that freedom in a certain way (they SHOULD). Believe it or not, government regulations don't have to be the solution to every little thing. See saurik's comment below for more.

I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if…

>: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

That doesn't apply? The common definition of censor is not exclusive to government.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#129

Post by gpu_explorer »

psyc wrote: post #47
gpu_explorer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Twitter is not a conscious being, and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. I support maximal liberty for humans, and appropriate protection of those humans from corporations as well as the government. Corporations may be collections of people, but they're a lot more than that - which makes them not human - and in any case they are not loci of experience.

By this logic, your family is also not a conscious being and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. Or maybe you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend and a group of friends. Are these groups also unable to experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed?

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#130

Post by albertopv »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

I don’t care what she said, it is not the job of private businesses to censor elected officials. And yes, I know they can but that does not mean they should .

Why not? Why should a private business let government decide who can speak and how and their platform? China does that and it's not funny.
Post reply on HN