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

331–340 of 366 posts

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

#331

Post by ddingus »

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…

By the way, why does no one think to ask why we got Trump?

I suggest doing that is less painful than limiting speech overall will be.

The risk of another Trump, or Trump again is serious! I fear it.

But I also question why he ran with, and a future "Trump type" would potentially run against, candidates lackluster enough to make the risk real.

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

#332

Post by _-david-_ »

epakai wrote: post #302
_-david-_ wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump explicitly asked his people to be peaceful in his fight metaphor which is more than you could say for many others.

He just said be peaceful once while repeatedly suggesting our election had been stolen and encouraging a large crowd to fight back. Meanwhile explicit efforts were being made to prevent the election certification. The subtext is readily apparent and its rather disgusting when people try to weasel in his token use of "peacefully". To believe that was his intent you have to think Trump was incompetently unaware of the…

I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable then fine, but nobody cares when their side does it.

Just to be clear, I am not saying you specifically are not consistent. I do not know what you believe, but until we have the same standards that we as a society agree to I will defend anybody's right to say questionable things so long as they do not call for violence or other crimes.

Bernie Sanders said that Republicans were killing Americans by going after a health care bill. One of his supporters (who also worked on Bernie's campaign) shot a Republican representative. That was inflammatory language and yet nobody holds Bernie to the same standard as they hold Trump to. To use your argument: To believe Bernie's language was not meant to incite violence you have to think Bernie was competently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.

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

#333

Post by lp0_on_fire »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #224
Veen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatism isn't a hard-right ideology.

I agree with that. But what is happening now isn't the traditional conservatism of 'low taxes, small government'. Look what happened to Liz Chenney, a traditional conservative if anybody can be called one, when she dared to claim Biden won the election.

Liz Cheney belongs to the neoconservative wing of the GOP just like her father and both of the Presidents Bush. All had no compunction with growing the size of government when it came to their policy of regime change abroad.

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

#334

Post by lp0_on_fire »

_-david-_ wrote: post #327
LightG wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could get into the detail but I won't, it's a waste of time here. But the very denial of the election result, and all that stems from that, is enough. If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than most of us.

Lots of people deny the 2000 election. Lots of people deny the 2016 election. Lots of people deny the 2020 election. Why is denial of 2020 worse than any of the others? Stacy Abrams is still claiming her election was stolen. Denial of elections is quite common in the US.

Usually when this point is brought up you get swarms of comments saying "well that's different".

The only "different" things I see are the political affiliations.

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

#335

Post by lp0_on_fire »

cityofdelusion wrote: post #263
NDizzle wrote: post #130

Take a look at the two tweets that twitter used to justify the perma ban of Trump. It's weak, at absolute best. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated…

That blog post looks pretty bad here in 2022. The rationale to justify the suspension is vague enough that anyone could be suspended for just about any reason. There is a lot of weasel phrasing in it ("...may also serve as encouragement" [according to who?], "...is being received by a number of his supporters" [who?], "...also being interpreted" [again, by who?], "...is being interpreted..." [by who?]). It reminds me…

> How that actually happens is not "a rule is broken leads to a ban", but rather, rules are combed through when a ban is desired.

I had the experience of moderating one of the larger political forums on reddit and in my experience this still happens. There were some mods who clearly had ideological axes to grind despite their insistence of impartiality.

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

#336

Post by _-david-_ »

dwringer wrote: post #321
_-david-_ wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump explicitly asked his people to be peaceful in his fight metaphor which is more than you could say for many others.

OTOH he also said he'd march with them to the Capitol, which presumably would have served as a form of leadership and given him some potential authority to further discourage violence. Instead, he (at best) decided to blow the whole thing off and leave the angry mob to its own devices for a few hours.

I fully agree he should have gone to the Capitol. That was reckless of him. I also believe he should have said something early than he did. I don't think he blew it off as I don't think he had any intention of going there with the crowd. While he used the words "we" and "let's" I think that was referring to the crowd and it was just the way Trump talks and he did not mean to imply he would go with them.

I don't think that matters. He did not tell them to go into the Capitol and he told them to be peaceful. I don't think you have thought through the outcome of this. It seems like you are saying that a person giving a speech to a crowd is responsible when some people in that crowd along with others not listening to the speech do something bad an hour later. Especially when some people claim they thought they were allowed to do that bad thing because some police opened some doors for them.

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

#337

Post by Gigachad »

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.

I think the other side of the argument has value though. If Twitter is large enough that it has such huge social impact rivalling that of governments, why should a single ceo or board be able to make these decisions.

We shouldn’t be expecting or perhaps even allowing twitter to make these calls at this scale. Twitter is beyond just a private company offering a product. It’s now a serious utility.

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

#338

Post by Gigachad »

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…

Freedom of speech is just a loose concept. The first amendment is an implementation of freedom of speech. It’s still accurate for a business to say they support and implement freedom of speech even if they are not legally obligated to.

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

#339

Post by upsidesinclude »

It is baffling that people think a person should be permanently banned from access to any "public forum", which Twitter has become.

To the people deriding Trump, you do recognize that no actual criminals are prevented from excersing speech? Even if you believe he is a criminal, the law of this country does not agree. You dislike him, great. You don't get to remove everything that you disagree with from a public forum.

To the ideologues believing that Republicans are destroying 'democracy', recall that this country is a constutional republic and the reason is because pure democracy, or majority rule, degrades to mob rule. To not make the mistake of equating freedom with democracy.

Not all votes are equal! What blasphemy! Not all people are engaged, informed and care about preserving the sovereignty of the nation. We have a system designed to keep those people from destroying our liberty.

The system allows the people to pick representatives who are sworn by oath to act as an informed and engaged agent on their behalf.

Our duty is to try our best to pick those agents that will put aside their interests and live by their oath.

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

#340

Post by chmod600 »

jfengel wrote: post #324
_-david-_ wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even RGB said that Roe vs Wade was on questionable constitutional grounds. Calling them activists is pretty ridiculous.

And the new decision is on even less constitutional grounds. There is nothing in the constitution that allows a state to force a woman to carry a baby. But it happens to be their preferred judicial activism, and therefore somehow not applicable.

State powers are very broad and a federal judge needs a good and specific reason to strike down a state law. See the tenth amendment.

The only way one might reasonably call the imminent opinion "activism" is based on stare decisis. And that's a debatable topic.

Post reply on HN