Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

271–280 of 366 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.

He didn't pack the court. He got 3 judges in 4 years because he was lucky. * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination * One because an existing Republican judge died * And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.

> * One because an existing Republican judge died

retired

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesse…

Do you think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong?

Yes, absolutely. But it is not constitutionally resolvable.

Mucking with the Constitution, such as extending the 1st Amendment beyond restriction of government, such as suspending habeas corpus, such as fulfilling 5th Amendment requirements with secret trials, such as adding an interpretation of self-defense to the 2nd Amendment that the Founders debated and intentionally left out, is all really very dangerous because these alterations are effectively diluting our freedoms until they become unrecognizable, and it begins to look like conservative agenda to dismantle government to allow those with money and rich corporations to exploit masses of individuals without limitations.

Considering Justice Scalia's unnecessary and unsupportable and overreaching (without 2/3rds majority of Congress or the state legislatures) reinterpretation of the 2nd to include self-defense fundamentally changes the Founders intent from a selfless right to stand against tyranny to a selfish and redundant right to protect your flatscreen TV. This was nothing less than vandalism, and we are all less safe for it. It is the same with Guantanamo and the suspension of habeas. This did us no favors and reduced the rights of every citizen. It is the same thing with killing Anwar al-Awlaki (let's be clear tho, he was evil), a US citizen, without a public indictment by a Grand Jury nor a public trial, really screws everyone and is a step towards changing our world into Kafka's nightmare, and worse, because we're teetering in the edge of widespread ecosystem collapse due to the activities of big business. Once we change so much of the framework, our government will collapse, and along with it, our individual freedoms, and the slow murder of Earth will be put into overdrive. Then we'll all be dead.

So let's work out problems like the Hollywood Blacklist without mucking with the Bill of Rights.

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

#273
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need any conspiracies theories to explain why Dorsey is a supporter of free speech. Dorsey has always been part of the crop of Enlightenment-liberal tech CEOs, which includes Larry, Sergey, and Zuckerberg. It got memory-holed pretty quickly, but these guys were dragged kicking and screaming into the new illiberal consensus that it was their job to decide what users are allowed to talk about. At a certain po…

Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders, financial consequences). Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is sel…

> Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to.

I don't know if you did this intentionally, but there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand here that prevents it from cohering logically. This isn't a case of "not contradicting" the new buyer. Dorsey _actively tweeted out_ that he supported reversing the Trump ban. If he had simply not spoken on the issue at all, how on Earth would you consider that "contradicting the person he is selling to"? Note that in the converse scenario, he never actively tweeted out that he happened to personally agree with increasing speech restrictions.

There's a pretty obvious asymmetry here: a period of silent assent with heavier speech codes vs active support for lighter speech codes (where the latter is also consistent with tangentially-expressed personal views).

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

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that

> Elon Musk So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of? https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-... > Jack Dorsey Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss…

It’s always about the money when we let billionaires decide how society should operate.

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

#276
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we all know Trump knows how to weasel his way out of anything.

It goes both way. If we assume intent behind a given action that has occurred, then we apply some form of competence to the person in their ability to turn intent into action. If an action is unintentional then there is some level of incompetence in play. The bigger the outcome and the more obvious we view the action is, the bigger the incompetence from a successful defense of non-intent.

If this word salad is what we’re reduced to when trying to justify why Trump ain’t in prison…

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

#277

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…

Dorsey is magically a "Free Speech" advocate now that it doesn't affect his checkbook. Erm, yeah. (See: Twitter in China for prior reference)

I'll file his newfound respect for rights over here next to all the Trump cronies who seem to magically find respect for rights between the time they resign and their next book deal.

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

#278

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…

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesse…

Belief in free speech is an ideology. The US Constitution's first amendment is a restriction against the US government in passing laws restricting speech. The two are not the same thing.

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

#279
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.u…

How does that relate to having a small subset of users to whom the rules don't apply?

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

#280
post #180

Seems like they're making slightly different arguments. Dorsey is saying it was wrong to permenantly ban, rather than suspend Trump. He's also saying it was a business decision, and it shouldn't have been. Honestly I don't know what that means. Every decision Twitter makes is a business decision. He violated the rules repeatedly and got away with it, I think it was absolutely the right choice.

>He's also saying it was a business decision, and it shouldn't have been. Honestly I don't know what that means.

It means the decision was driven by which option drives higher profit, and not a moral position.

Post reply on HN