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

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#191

Post by IronWolve »

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?

The private company argument was used back in the civil rights movement too, it was an excuse.

Society banned private companies denying services in law to promote a better and acceptable society.

Sadly, just to re-implement it again under the same old tired argument, it's a private company...

It's not fooling anyone who is being honest, this is just banning people you don't like.

Political group is the new religious group, banning the groups you don't like shouldn't be acceptable in modern society.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#192

Post by clowd »

josephcsible wrote: post #172
clowd wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-count…

Facebook has a habit of politically motivated bans too, so she'll probably get banned from there next just like everyone else has. And Gab and Parler have a really hard time getting users since Google banned them from the Play Store (and I think Apple did the same), so it's disingenuous to pretend that they're equivalents to Twitter.

I don't think "everyone else" has been banned from Facebook; aside from Trump, I can't think of any other American elected official they've banned. Gab and Parler both work fine in a web browser.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#193

Post by gpu_explorer »

josephcsible wrote: post #176
gpu_explorer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. You're right, the censorship happened even before that: Twitter's contract that says "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions" is the root of the censorship.

Where does Twitter's user agreement say "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions"? Otherwise, your argument feels like hyperbole to me.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#194

Post by gpu_explorer »

IronWolve wrote: post #191
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?

The private company argument was used back in the civil rights movement too, it was an excuse. Society banned private companies denying services in law to promote a better and acceptable society. Sadly, just to re-implement it again under the same old tired argument, it's a private company... It's not fooling anyone who is being honest, this is just banning people you don't like. Political group is the new religious…

I don't think this is the same old tired argument.

Political groups are not a protected class in the United States, and for good reason. Political affiliation is not an inherent quality of a person. People's political affiliation can, and does, change.

Marjorie Taylor Green had her Twitter account terminated for breaching a written contract between her and Twitter. Her Twitter account was not terminated because she is a Republican, or because she's a woman, or because she's white, or because she's over 40, or because she's heterosexual.

During the civil rights movement, people were denied service because of the color of their skin. This didn't happen to Marjorie Taylor Green.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#196

Post by hammock »

gpu_explorer wrote: post #193
josephcsible wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're right, the censorship happened even before that: Twitter's contract that says "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions" is the root of the censorship.

Where does Twitter's user agreement say "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions"? Otherwise, your argument feels like hyperbole to me.

If the agreement doesn't say that, then why are you calling her tweets breach of contract?

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#197

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

riffic wrote: post #171

members of congress should not be using commercial social media as their exclusive form of pushing out status updates to the populace. We have open standards (W3C recommendations) even, and these protocols can be adopted by the content management system used by House.Gov. Congress Critters need to become part of the Fedi.

It's a lot harder making everybody fight with one another if all you have is your own website though.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#198

Post by jacquesm »

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.

The only reason they use Twitter is because that is a direct way to the public, rather than through those pesky mainstream media who might decide not to air certain statements or write about them in their opinion columns right along the reporting.

It's simply an attempt at an end-run around the free press, that's why it is so popular with the extremists and that's why the extremists do their damnest to create their own 'safe space' for their horrifying little screeds.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#199

Post by jacquesm »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #50
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.

This is close to my reasoning. If Twitter or others are so important then they should be regulated as public utilities. I don't think they are. It's funny when politicians with entire staff committed to disseminating information complain about censorship.

Twitter was there before she decided to join. She could have just stuck to press releases.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#200

Post by jacquesm »

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.

You are basically arguing for some line that needs to be drawn for when services are allowed to ban someone, and then to lift that line to a new level because someone is an elected politician. Twitter - rightly - holds everybody in principle to the same standards. Want to play in the sandbox? Play nice.
Post reply on HN