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

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#351

Post by dheera »

handmodel wrote: post #65
ve55 wrote: post #44

This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…

I think the logic isn't that hard. Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally

I reckon it also has a lot to do with ad revenue.

Trump is the ONLY reason I'm on Twitter. There is literally no other benefit I gain from being on Twitter. Also, people only ever respond to me if I tweet against Trump's policies. If I say anything about science or tech or humanity or art or say some interesting ideas, nobody listens to me. Nobody retweets me. Nobody follows me. It's like talking to a wall.

His term is over, and my reason to be on Twitter is over.

So from Twitter's standpoint they don't have much to lose by doing the right thing and banning him with only a little more than a week left.

If they had banned him 2 years ago they'd have lost 2 years of my ad revenue.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#352

Post by nineplay »

busymom0 wrote: post #141

I am loving people who don't understand that they are literally supporting billionaires while claiming to be anti-corporate resistance. Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." I am still a…

> Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

What an unusual POV

civil rights movement: not liberal

Vietnam war protesters: not liberal

Where did you find these liberals? The don't seem to have much in common with the liberals I know.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#353

Post by um_ya »

webel0 wrote: post #252
Rebelgecko wrote: post #54

Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.

This was my exact initial reaction. However, suppose that Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barack Obama had declined to attend the inauguration of there predecessors. That would surely trigger a crisis worthy of de-platforming. We’ve become somewhat numb to this sort of thing. I guess my second draft would have said, “We’ve allowed DJT a platform because he is the President of the United States. In light of all that he…

Perhaps Trump supporters should have burnt down cities and destroyed businesses. Apparently everyone is okay with that, but it's "unacceptable" to protest and occupy the capital in protest. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#354

Post by manfredo »

I agree with Twitter's decision to ban Trump now. He has no effective authority at this point, and is essentially just trolling - and to deadly, if indirect, effect. I also agree with Twitter's decision to keep his while he still wielded meaningful power as a President, despite repeatedly breaking codes of conduct. When he wielded actual power as President, letting the public see his words has value regardless of what those words contained. But now that he's on his way out, they have no more redeeming value.

Critics of this decision often point out that this let Trump magnify his voice and spread harmful messages. I disagree. Trump would have tweeted through some other mechanism. We've already seen analogous applications pop up when social media bans big players - see thedonald.win as an example. Doing this would not accomplish anything in terms of limiting the reach of Trump's messages, and would only serve to further reinforce many conservatives' perceptions of bias in social media.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#355

Post by kinghajj »

mzs wrote: post #323
Rebelgecko wrote: post #54

Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.

No, those precise justifications were born-out en masse today on Parler, /pol/, & 8kun.

Can you loop the rest of us in? What happened today on those forums?

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#356

Post by sixothree »

shiado wrote: post #115

74 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.

There have been closer elections in recent history. Why are you giving this particular one such outsized proportion?

You didn't see this sort of reaction in 2000, and that was far far closer.

And to be clear, this election was 306 to 232. That is considered a landslide in my book (meaning my 40+ years of living). And in percentages, you can see just how poorly Trump performed in this election - 51.4% to 46.9%. 2000 was 47.9% to 48.4% (technically a negative 0.5% difference).

So I think your argument is completely disingenuous.

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#357

Post by OCASM »

handmodel wrote: post #65
ve55 wrote: post #44

This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…

I think the logic isn't that hard. Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally

If Twitter was being fair, many democrats would be banned too since they also said things to whip up mobs this past year with far worse consequences. Some are still ongoing (Portland).

Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

#358

Post by tmpz22 »

postalrat wrote: post #132

When /r/the_donald got booted off reddit they got together and created https://thedonald.win/ . All this action from twitter will do is create an opportunity for a different or new site to host trump's comments. And for many people, and maybe someday the majority of people, that new site may be more trustworthy than twitter.

Having massive followings on fringe sites yields less legitimacy then having a massive following on one of the mainstays of the internet.
Post reply on HN