Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#201

Post by rsynnott » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 11:59 PM UTC

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.

So, traditionally, politicians communicated via press release, either personally or via a press office. Of course, this had the disadvantage that newspapers etc might just decline to publish obvious nonsense.

However, there’s presumably nothing stopping her from issuing this nonsense via press release, or on a blog, or similar.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#202

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 11:59 PM UTC

aDfbrtVt wrote: post #76

The post that got her suspended claimed “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” per the NYT article. I was unable to find a screenshot of the original tweet, seems to have been deleted. A cursory look at the raw VAERS data from the CDC[1] shows: Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. (...) During this time,…

And that's before you get into VAERS being raw data, not processed data and that the numbers reported by VAERS are going to be higher than the real ones.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#203

Post by IronWolve » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 12:45 AM UTC

gpu_explorer wrote: post #194

IronWolve wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Politics encompasses everything. And people can switch religion too. So thats not really an argument protected rights are finite and not subject to change.

Also, Lets not pretend politics isn't the reason companies are banning and denying service to people.

They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation". Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing counter views, the politics that do include race, religion, and other aspects of life.

Civil rights like openly protesting for the opposite political party is indeed being squashed.

This is the same excuse thats used to silence preachers/priests who talk politics, as if the 2 are not the same.

Civil rights is politics. California knew this when they added political association to protected classes.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#204

Post by gpu_explorer » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:30 AM UTC

IronWolve wrote: post #203

gpu_explorer wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Politics encompasses everything. And people can switch religion too. So thats not really an argument protected rights are finite and not subject to change. Also, Lets not pretend politics isn't the reason companies are banning and denying service to people. They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation". Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing c…

I would remind you that vaccine hesitancy, vaccine skepticism, and vaccine avoidance are not the sole property of the American political right. To this point, Twitter also banned Naomi Wolf. Google it if you're not familiar. Instagram banned RFK Jr. Google that as well if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/05/naomi-wolf-ban...

Marjorie Taylor Green posted provably false misinformation about vaccines, in clear violation of Twitters terms of service. She entered into a binding contract when she signed up for her Twitter account, and Twitter found a suitable remedy. She breached the contract and they terminated her account.

But never mind private companies. Society does not have to accommodate toxic, antisocial "counter views" in the interest of "fair and balanced". There is nothing "fair and balanced" about lies, and there aren't two sides to every debate. It's very convenient to cry censorship, but where is your call for personal responsibility on the part of Ms. Green?

I would be interested in proof that her account was terminated for her right leaning politics.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#205

Post by mindslight » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

gpu_explorer wrote: post #165

mindslight wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ag…

> 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

This is the legal analysis of how Twitter can do this, which I understand. But you keep asserting it as if it is some universal truth, without engaging with my actual arguments about the constructive result of such framework.

> a corporation cannot levy taxes, cannot jail people

Except that it can - you can sign a contract agreeing to some schedule of charges (called "taxes") or to have to spend time in a certain place (called "jail").

> cannot execute someone

The only reason you cannot sign a contract that allows for your execution as a consequence of default is because your bare ability to contract has been restricted by the larger government.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#206

Post by kthejoker2 » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

nojito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She made repetitive tweets that Omicron proves that vaccines don't work.

Okay, but do you think that a single person following her Twitter is going to say, “Wow, Twitter censored her because she was wrong”? Of course not. They are going to be livid and more determined in their belief. Anyone defending vaccine should be angry at Twitter for making the situation worse.

Banning works

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-contro...

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#207

Post by IronWolve » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 4:04 AM UTC

gpu_explorer wrote: post #204

IronWolve wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics encompasses everything. And people can switch religion too. So thats not really an argument protected rights are finite and not subject to change. Also, Lets not pretend politics isn't the reason companies are banning and denying service to people. They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation". Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing c…

I would remind you that vaccine hesitancy, vaccine skepticism, and vaccine avoidance are not the sole property of the American political right. To this point, Twitter also banned Naomi Wolf. Google it if you're not familiar. Instagram banned RFK Jr. Google that as well if you want. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/05/naomi-wolf-ban... Marjorie Taylor Green posted provably false misinformation about vaccines…

Good point, while the right is more outspoken about mandates the left does occasionally get banned for it.

But to say her view is toxic, would be picking sides. Her posting CDC links is pretty far from toxic.

That seems pretty much targeted for her politics.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#208

Post by sjs382 » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

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…

Strangely enough, MTG is actually a proponent of cancel culture. See: her calls to fire/blacklist athletes that knelt during the national anthems.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#209

Post by Jansen312 » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 8:46 AM UTC

bcrl wrote: post #147

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.

They don't have to rely on Twitter. Politicians have office budgets which include money for sending out mailings to their constituents. Most politicians also have their own email lists to which they send out updates and run polls. There are plenty of venues outside of Twitter to contact constituents. Twitter itself is under no more of an obligation to publish material from a politician than a newspaper is. Both are c…

Newspaper can be sued. Twitter can't (section 230) because they are a platform that can't choose what to publish. But they now giving Congress the finger by acting like newspaper and still can't be sued. Essentially, new media are given protection while old media constrainted. I favor 230 removed or explicitly nullify if media show they can censor.

Re: Twitter Permanently Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Account

#210

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #187

krapp wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a ba…

> If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Why does the government need to built its own social media platform? We regulate other privately-owned utilities all the time. Cell phone companies, power utilities, water services, waste management,…

Everyone seems to like beating the "regulation" drum but it's not at all clear what that would mean. Companies can no longer ban politicians? Companies can no longer filter "misinformation" (whatever that is)?

Plus, are we trying to force companies to let all speech through (antisemitism OK? True racism OK?), or just to force them to carry what they deem "misinformation"?

It's hard to understand exactly what the goal of this "regulation" are and it's even harder to imagine a regulatory scheme that would accomplish those goals without major unwanted side effects.