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

Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#31

Post by sedivy94 »

stonogo wrote: post #29
NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

>the crime of walking through a building; Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?

That’s a reference to the dozens of Americans detained for over a year with no charges or due process. I would pick a different hill to die on.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#32

Post by eyelidlessness »

blockwriter wrote: post #26
peterashford wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, your intuition differs, but my view (as a New Zealander) is that Trump absolutely broke the terms of use of the platforms he was on and deserved being banned. Free speech means that you can't be imprisoned for your political views, not that everyone owes you a platform.

It does mean more than not being imprisoned. For example, if the government came to Facebook and told them to remove all posts by a certain politician, violations of the platform’s rules notwithstanding, I believe that would also be a violation of America’s first amendment.

But that didn’t happen.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#33

Post by plusminusplus »

NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28
stonogo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it so hard to believe that this argument eventually actually prevailed within the organization?

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

> the crime of walking through a building

This is really the most nuanced understanding that you can muster

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#34

Post by lotsoweiners »

NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28
stonogo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it so hard to believe that this argument eventually actually prevailed within the organization?

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

*who has enough flaws of his own (anti-vaxx, anti-woke)*

I don't love this correlation.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#35

Post by ihatepython »

rootusrootus wrote: post #11
thinking4real wrote: post #7

“The public should be able to hear what politicians are saying so they can make informed choices.” Oh that’s hilarious. After tech companies stifling a sitting president, now they are going to straight faced claim this like it means a damn thing. This is insulting to users’ intelligence.

To be fair, it has been quite a while (not in our lifetime AFAIK) since we had a sitting president with such antisocial behavior tendencies. It was uncharted territory.

Bill Clinton? Bush? Obama? Not at all uncharted territory.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#36

Post by [deleted] »

blockwriter wrote: post #26
peterashford wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, your intuition differs, but my view (as a New Zealander) is that Trump absolutely broke the terms of use of the platforms he was on and deserved being banned. Free speech means that you can't be imprisoned for your political views, not that everyone owes you a platform.

It does mean more than not being imprisoned. For example, if the government came to Facebook and told them to remove all posts by a certain politician, violations of the platform’s rules notwithstanding, I believe that would also be a violation of America’s first amendment.

[deleted]

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#37

Post by [deleted] »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #34
NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

*who has enough flaws of his own (anti-vaxx, anti-woke)* I don't love this correlation.

[deleted]

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#38

Post by [deleted] »

plusminusplus wrote: post #33
NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

> the crime of walking through a building This is really the most nuanced understanding that you can muster

[deleted]

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#39

Post by NtochkaNzvanova »

stonogo wrote: post #29
NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

>the crime of walking through a building; Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?

I addressed the point of your question directly by offering a plausible alternative explanation for what's going on here.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#40

Post by ShivShankaran »

NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #28
stonogo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it so hard to believe that this argument eventually actually prevailed within the organization?

Yes? I'd speculate the discussion in fact went something like this: 1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building; 2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again; 3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has e…

[dead]
Post reply on HN