Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence” • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#151

Post by spacephysics » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:31 AM UTC

fermienrico wrote: post #132

Side topic: Should government control looting when it comes to violent protests?

With innocent people being harmed, and at least one killed, I think they should. Letting this get out of control is not the best option, as tensions are already high from covid, and this could be a feedback loop to more unneeded violence, with unintended victims caught in the cross hairs.

With a gas line possibly being cut, and ~170 business burned down, this is spiraling out of control [0]

I mention the gas line (though I don’t know if this a fair comparison) for the potential of chained explosions like the one in Merrimack Valley [1]

Regardless, I think many are using the protests as an excuse to loot, and let off steam from the tensions of lockdown, in addition to its obvious main reason.

[0] https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/protesters-take-mi...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimack_Valley_gas_explosi...

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#152

Post by osobo » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:32 AM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #21

Good, and frankly they should have been doing this sort of thing sooner.

I'm guessing they had been holding back until the campaigning season started. Now they get maximum impact.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#153

Post by xpaqui » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:39 AM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #122

enriquto wrote: post #25

I couldn't care less for the politics of the USA, but it is mildly amusing that twitter are trolling one of their most prominent users.

Moderating a prominent troll and raising the standards to the level of every other user, is not really politics.

If we ingore context, but without it this wouldn't be discussed.

To define Donald as a troll is also political statement.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#154

Post by xpaqui » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:40 AM UTC

rootlocus wrote: post #28

paganel wrote: post #20

I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.

Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

Can you explain how not fact checking implies picking a side?

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#155

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:42 AM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #135

AgentME wrote: post #130

One angle I don't see discussed: I wonder if Trump commits to more risky/bombastic/divisive plans as president because he feels confident that he can directly frame them and control the narrative by using his audience on Twitter, and he feels emboldened by how immediately Twitter is able to deliver the reactions. If there's a chance this is true, I can especially understand Twitter wanting to have no part in this. It…

Twitter should have suspended the account of a repeated rule breaker a long time ago. If I threatened to shoot the president, I would be in jail already, not to mention my twitter account would be suspended.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#156

Post by makomk » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:47 AM UTC

acid__ wrote: post #48

rootlocus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

Maybe a statement that we can all agree on would be: _selectively_ fact checking implies picking sides? I think it's a point of contention (colored by existing political views) as to whether or not Twitter is selectively fact checking here. Hopefully this isn't too controversial, there's a lot of hostility already in this thread, and I don't want to contribute to it.

Selectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#157

Post by arrrg » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:47 AM UTC

paganel wrote: post #20

I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.

To believe that it’s even possible to not pick sides is non-sensical.

“Not picking sides” often means siding with the status quo. That might be fine but it’s not the same as not picking a side.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#158

Post by makomk » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #146

mimikatz wrote: post #137

I feel really disconnected from what is the online mainstream thought. Trump is a huge embarrassment and this tweet should never come from our president. Twitter is doing some real selective enforcement that doesn't seem even handed or even logical. The Tweet in question vaguely qualifies, and there is much worse stuff being posted to Twitter that more clearly and more demonstratively glorifies violence. Search Twitt…

It's often troubling, but moderation has always been selective.

This particular selective moderation is functionally equivalent to Twitter giving their backing to an actual, real-world riot and associated calls to murder cops whilst hiding behind Section 230 in order to avoid any liability. That seems... inadvisable, though obviously popular with the political faction most of their employees come from.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#159

Post by morsch » Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:59 AM UTC

paganel wrote: post #20

I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.

> so they should expect what’s coming to them

The national guard?

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#160

Post by DavideNL » Fri, May 29, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

TechBro8615 wrote: post #140

slg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is using past violence as a threat of imminent violence while the other accounts you mentioned will generally reference violence indirectly or in the past tense. That is an important distinction.

He is the commander in chief. He has the capability to threaten violence. This tweet, while in bad taste IMO, was a threat to those who are planning to continue looting and burning buildings in Minneapolis. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the videos, but there are full scale riots. Rioters completely looted a Target and burned it nearly to the ground. Is “shooting” the answer to that? Probably not. And hopefully the Nati…

He may be commander in chief, but even commanders in chief have to follow certain laws / moral rules. Just observing his behavior during speeches and such, it should be obvious to anyone that Trumps mental state is... abnormal, and needs to be corrected.