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

Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 366 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#201

Post by theandrewbailey »

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #139
theandrewbailey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that mob incitement is an excuse used for selective enforcement of the rules. If you're on the left, you're clearly operating under different rules: https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864

Context matters. The LGBTQ+ community is not known for having weapons and for bringing those to the table during debates. It is not known for committing violence either. This contrasts severely with the crowd that Trump was addressing at the time. Their spaces were filled with calls to weaponization, civil wars and conspiracies against the system itself. The messages were written after people had made threats and ref…

When we're talking about bans on social media, context doesn't matter. How many stories have you read of someone trying to argue and explain context to overturn a ban, only to have the appeal rejected? (And if it is overturned, it's only because strings were pulled.)

When someone gets banned, a reason might be given, but context never is.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#202

Post by oceanplexian »

originalvichy wrote: post #87

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with bei…

Trump was a fairly average right-wing politician. Another Bush, or McCain, or Romney would have nominated the same Supreme Court Justices and had more or less identical policy.

The few times Trump went against the grain he was overruled in the House and Senate, and ultimately he peacefully transferred power to the next president despite the rioting after he lost the election. So the implicit argument that he was some kind of danger to democracy or radical force that tore up the fabric of society seems like nothing more than partisanship. At the least his actions didn't seem like a huge departure from any other politician. I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#203

Post by sascha_sl »

cloutchaser wrote: post #52
stephencanon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Trump should have been banned before even running for office? Oh is that how it works now in Silicon Valley? Can we just ban all right wing politicians from twitter so they don't get elected? Sounds like democracy!

Last I checked 10 years before 2021 was 2011 when Trump wasn't a candidate anyone (including himself) took seriously.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#204

Post by ck2 »

I mean that was the whole reason Musk bought twitter, you will never convince me otherwise.

But are there things that can get you banned on the "new" twitter?

Because then any concern about unbanning him and similar is a moot point because they will be banned again within a month or two as long as rules are enforced.

However I am dubious rules will be enforced. I think everything is going to be "nudge nudge wink wink".

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#205

Post by sascha_sl »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #192

A ban on a web site is usually driven by one or more violations of Terms of Service. Some of those Terms of Service are linked to criminal laws and the company wants to protect itself from being prosecuted, liable to damages, etc. I dislike the use of the words "freedom of speech" when it comes to social media/web sites because uneducated people seem to think a ban is a violation of the 1st US amendment. Which is eve…

Let's be completely honest. Twitter bans people based on metrics and 1-2 seconds of review per report (possibly by a human!).

Trump got the white glove treatment of actually evaluating his compliance with the TOS, likely with an actual lawyer involved too.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#206

Post by nonameiguess »

chmod600 wrote: post #142
originalvichy wrote: post #87

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with bei…

"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obvio…

Short-term isn't really that short. Witness all the tales of teachers not being able to admit to being gay in the 90s without risking getting fired, or don't ask, don't tell, which was only repealed roughly a decade ago. These speech restrictions were all being pushed by the American GOP, which is now reversing course less than a few years later as they find the cultural tides shifting away from moral majority, satanic panic type stuff that saw them banning 2 Live Crew and Judas Priest albums toward political correctness and now it's their speech being restricted. There is no good reason to think this is some permanent state of affairs and the tides won't shift back the other way again, or that it will take centuries or something. If history is any guide, it'll happen before current college students even hit middle age.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#207

Post by dragontamer »

dnissley wrote: post #175
chmod600 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obvio…

The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.

Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs.

And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#208

Post by cableshaft »

oceanplexian wrote: post #202
originalvichy wrote: post #87

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with bei…

Trump was a fairly average right-wing politician. Another Bush, or McCain, or Romney would have nominated the same Supreme Court Justices and had more or less identical policy. The few times Trump went against the grain he was overruled in the House and Senate, and ultimately he peacefully transferred power to the next president despite the rioting after he lost the election. So the implicit argument that he was some…

> I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned.

One difference is Hillary Clinton officially conceded the morning after the election in 2016, meanwhile Trump to this day, a year and a half later, still insists he still won the 2020 election and that it was rigged.

Those people you're referring to in 2016 also didn't storm the Capitol trying to overturn the election results by physical force.

Despite this, I don't think it was the best decision to give Trump a permanent ban on Twitter, and it's probably time to let him back on. Politics is full of people saying really stupid things and denying reality, why single him out.

It only bled other people off the platform and made them seek other platforms, further dividing and segregating people into their echo chambers even more.

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#209

Post by dhzhzjsbevs »

ricardoplouis wrote: post #61

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused?

Anyhoo, what's that got to do with twitter? Since when did they become the police?

Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

#210

Post by sascha_sl »

causi wrote: post #111

I don't agree with government regulation of what should or should not be in a site's code of conduct. Requiring codes of conduct to be enforced equally on all users, however, merits some thought.

But then the entire business model becomes even less viable than it already is. Twitter and other social media have to rely on outsourced overworked and underpaid reviewers who will never have the time or training understand context (regularly receiving veiled threats[1] and not having anyone act on them made me quit twitter) and make thousands of decisions per hour. It doesn't scale any other way.

[1]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=join%20the%2...

Post reply on HN