341–350 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president is the most visible face of the government. Of all the ones you mentioned, it's the only one people actually vote for. What he says and does has the most impact. So I don't find it "interesting", I find it entirely reasonable.
Only if you think that there are only Americans in this world. Hint: there are non-Americans too. Downvotes? HN really thinks there are only Americans on this planet? Of dear.
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
Instead of being the police, Twitter should do what Rotten Tomatoes does. There are plenty of people - journalists and researchers analyzing the facts behind what celebrities say. They should analyze what the analysts say and display a score.
I find it clever that Twitter is not deleting the tweets, but simply adding their opinions about it. I don't know if you can call "censure" when your messages are still visible to the public, but the "editor-that-is-not-really-an-editor-but-sort-of" simply adds a banner saying "yeah, sure, right." I can't wait for Trump to protest the flagging, and Twitter to respond that "flagging tweets while letting them visible"…
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
It can’t be all perfectly achieved, but to do nothing, as they were before, could be now determined to be a worse case than providing these annotations to flagrant misuse by the highest impact profile that they can’t do away with entirely.
The White House twitter account has issued a response: https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266367168603721728?s=... This* Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, @Twitter has determined that it will allow terrorists, dictators, and foreign propagandists to abuse its platform. *Referring to an attached picture of a Khamenei tweet about Palestine
That's amazing. Of all the horrific thing people post to Twitter all day long, a vague statement about Palestinian independence is the "best" whataboutist comparison Trump could find to match his own threat to open fire on the country he is sworn to defend.
Good, and frankly they should have been doing this sort of thing sooner.
I'm guessing they had been holding back until the campaigning season started. Now they get maximum impact.
But the fact of the matter is that the Citizens United ruling grants private corporations the right to free speech. He can continue to use Twitter, but they've literally got the right to campaign against him, editorialize, shadowban, or straight up ban him. He could choose to follow the site's rules, or run off to Gab. But he's doing it for attention and his tantrums and Twitter's non-enforcement actions are getting him a lot of that.
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
The valley being an echo chamber doesn’t necessarily mean those implementing this have their heads in the sand. It can’t be all perfectly achieved, but to do nothing, as they were before, could be now determined to be a worse case than providing these annotations to flagrant misuse by the highest impact profile that they can’t do away with entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in political science and sociology, one of the most common definitions of the state is that it possesses a monopoly on legitimate/lawful violence. Violence conducted via the military or police, according to regulation , is lawful. But violence conducted by citizens, or by members of the government or military that is not according to law/regulation, is not lawful. I'm not saying Twitter's drawing the line exact…
Wasn't Trump referring to stand your ground laws?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...