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

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by tomp »

This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for all rules violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which should probably be banned.)

Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do right now with NSFW content) - the default filter would be very "protective" (no porn, no violence, no gore, no hate speech) but users could turn off any or all of these "filters". The next step is the addition of user-curated "lists" / "filters" (e.g. "no democrats", "no republicans", "no vegans", "no dog lovers", ...).

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

#172

Post by throwaway9d0291 »

fermienrico wrote: post #132

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

Looting is illegal. It happening when there's a violent "protest" going on doesn't make it any less illegal.

One of the government's core tasks is to enforce the law, so yes, the government should control looting.

And FWIW, I think "violent protest" is a misleading euphemism. This is a riot, whether you speak American [0] or English [1].

I honestly don't understand why this is a question. Why wouldn't the government be expected to enforce the law?

[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot

[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/riot

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

#173

Post by danielrpa »

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…

Twitter isn't owned by the president or the federal government; Trump has many other legally established venues for his public announcements (whitehouse.gov, for instance). If he prefers to use a private company to speak to the public, he has to abide by its rules - in that regard, he is no different from any other Twitter customer.

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

#175

Post by anater »

tomp wrote: post #171

This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for all rules violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which should probably be banned.) Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do right now with NS…

I believe twitter already does this through shared block lists

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

#177

Post by throwawaysea »

So is twitter going to hide tweets that have incited and glorified the riots in the first place? I haven’t seen consequences for the antifa and DSA accounts that are responsible for these riots. It certainly seems like Twitter has a double standard.

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

#179

Post by tehwebguy »

bilbo0s wrote: post #131

In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.

It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
Post reply on HN