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

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#161

Post by mark_l_watson »

gpu_explorer wrote: post #137
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…

Humans are a social species, and a lot of what you refer to as "cancel culture" is a reaction to antisocial behavior like racism and sexism and homophobia that actively harms our societies. Some of this behavior has been going on for centuries or longer. People who support so called "cancel culture" simply think that a few millennia of racism and sexism are enough. Reasonable people should not condemn cancel culture;…

I realize now that I have a different definition of “cancel culture” than you and some other people here, which is OK.

I was thinking of what Bill Mahr, on his HBO show, talks about as far as cancelling appearances at universities of people who were invited to talk, and then some subgroup protested that they didn’t like their opinions. I am also thinking of cancelling people whose political opinions vary, and also in this case an elected Congresswoman who has some very wrong ideas about the dangers of vaccinations.

I think that racist, etc. remarks are easier to filter and discard than political ideas. I feel comfortable using automated filters to discard racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks, but I am not comfortable discarding political speech.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#162

Post by clowd »

neartheplain wrote: post #105
mkr-hn wrote: post #69

I don't know who needs to hear this, but if a company suspends a member of the government who has a budget and staff for PR as a function of serving as a member of that government, then that person has not in any meaningful way been censored by the government. This is not the poster case for trying to prove tech has too much power. There's a long list of marginalized people suspended for no good reason who don't get…

How many times a year do you watch C-SPAN? How often do you browse the press release page for your local elected official, much less someone else's? Whatever you think of this particular Congresswoman, Twitter is one of the largest and most influential outreach platforms. It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." Getting banned from T…

> It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements."

It's more like getting banned from one radio station in the 1940s and going "Who cares? She can still go on a bunch of other radio stations, and most people are capable of tuning in, if they want to."

She's on Facebook. She's on Gab. She's on Parler. She's on Gettr. She went on a cross-country tour last year. She appears on TV and will probably get even more TV appearances out of this. Anyone who wants to hear whatever she's saying has their choice of outlets from which to do so.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#163

Post by clowd »

version_five wrote: post #85
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.

I'd also say constituents shouldn't have to rely on for-profit (and in this case objectively harmful to society) advertising platforms in order to hear from elected officials or government. Where I am, Twitter seems to have become the default channel for many kinds of communication, and those of us who don't use it are excluded.

Every member of Congress is provided with their own website, a subdomain of either house.gov or senate.gov, for the entirety of their term. If your representative neglects that website and chooses to communicate through a private outlet instead, that's something to complain to your representative about.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#164

Post by jml78 »

neartheplain wrote: post #105
mkr-hn wrote: post #69

I don't know who needs to hear this, but if a company suspends a member of the government who has a budget and staff for PR as a function of serving as a member of that government, then that person has not in any meaningful way been censored by the government. This is not the poster case for trying to prove tech has too much power. There's a long list of marginalized people suspended for no good reason who don't get…

How many times a year do you watch C-SPAN? How often do you browse the press release page for your local elected official, much less someone else's? Whatever you think of this particular Congresswoman, Twitter is one of the largest and most influential outreach platforms. It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." Getting banned from T…

Do you realize her official Congress account is not banned? Only her personal account that she used to spread misinformation.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#165

Post by gpu_explorer »

mindslight wrote: post #151
gpu_explorer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion. It's absolutely appropriate to reference the Bill of Rights. As a collection of individuals, Twitter is legally entitled to both freedom of expression and freedom of association. That said, Twitter also has every right to ban Marjorie Taylor Green for breach…

Taking your definitions and continuing on with them, there is nothing that distinguishes "US Government" from a private company with whom you're contracting with, whereby it can do all of those internal-facing "exceptional" things you listed. Roughly - your parents were under contract with the company when you were a minor, you assented to the contract when you became of age, and you can terminate the contract at any…

Twitter has the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, and this gives them the perfect right to ban people from their platform if they don't agree with what people say. Just like you have the right to ask people to leave your house or business if you don't agree with what they say. Twitter's rights, and your rights, include banning people from platform/home whose political speech they/you don't agree with - which Twitter didn't even do in this case.

In this case, Marjorie Taylor Green's Twitter account was terminated for breach of contract. She was an adult when she signed a written contract with Twitter and opened her account. According to Twitter, she breached the agreement and they elected to choose a remedy that some people don't like. That's just too bad. She isn't facing arrest or imprisonment as a result of her statements. She can go ahead and sue them in civil court if she disagrees!

I'm sorry, I hate to repeat myself, but a corporation cannot levy taxes, cannot jail people, cannot execute someone, cannot declare war, all of which a government can do through a variety of legal means. In fact, the US government has so much power that it can do these things through extra legal means and face no consequences whatsoever.

Twitter does not have this kind of power, and I am rightly suspicious of arguments that attempt to frame the situation otherwise, no matter how elegantly or abstractly presented.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#166

Post by loudtieblahblah »

gpu_explorer wrote: post #19
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 should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

When the decentralized web, for all intents and purposes died and was replaced by like 5-6 major platforms who largely collude to silence people or perspectives...all the "mah property" take on how this isn't a free speech case goes out the door.

The monopolistic cabal of Twitter, Facebook and Google changes how this should be seen.

Imho - you either break them up into a 100 companies, or you legally ban them from censorship.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#167

Post by bradlys »

gpu_explorer wrote: post #132
afavour wrote: post #113

What an absolute boon for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Twitter is not a place where useful, meaningful conversation happens in the political space ( especially by people like MTG) but she’ll be able to dine out on this ban for a long time. I expect it’ll be featured in every fundraising email she sends until something changes. She’s not meaningfully censored, just like Trump wasn’t: every press release he sends gets cover…

It's hard to see this as a "boon" for Marjorie Taylor Green. If Twitter is such a useless platform, why was she busy using it to promote her ideas? I absolutely agree that termination of her Twitter account is not meaningful censorship. I'm sure it won't be long before all the networks want to interview her about it. The invitations have probably already been sent.

Twitter is a place that is used by a lot of “journalists” or just people in the media. Participating there is going to get you coverage in other forms of media and free rent in the minds of people in media.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#168

Post by bradlys »

solarkraft wrote: post #110

Ah, let's get out the two wonderful arguments: - Censorship bad, the state should regulate social media to not censor - It's a private company, they can do whatever they want Used however it fits by either political side. Are we better than this?

Looking at this thread - no, no we are not. Doomed to repeat until eternity it seems.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#169

Post by clowd »

psyc wrote: post #20
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not censoring for a private company to refuse service to someone. I don't agree with government compelling speech for a private company either.

Why is Twitter the speaker when MTG tweets, but Verizon is not the speaker when I call my mom?

The pragmatic answer is: because the law says so.

The technical answer is: Verizon can't hear what you're saying to your mom, so they don't know/care the content.

The social answer is: ultimately there's no real difference between the two. If you use your Verizon phone to make harassing calls to your mom and she reports those calls to Verizon, or if you do something else that violates your agreement with Verizon, they too have the right to terminate your service:

"We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement or violate our prohibited usage policies..."

Now, because you pay Verizon, and Verizon likes money, they may be more inclined to tolerate certain behavior as long as you pay your bill on time. That's their choice, though.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#170

Post by xdennis »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #14
bko wrote: post #4

> Twitter suspended Ms. Greene’s account after she tweeted on Saturday, falsely, about “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” She included a misleading chart that pulled data from a government database of unverified raw data. Does anyone have a link to the tweet in question? It's interesting that it was labeled the chart as "misleading" as opposed to based on doctored data. It appears being factual is not…

It's not censoring for a private company to refuse service to someone. I don't agree with government compelling speech for a private company either.

Just because Twitter has the right to remove content doesn't mean that removing it isn't censorship.
Post reply on HN