551–560 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because suspending Spike Lee would have required someone at Twitter to make that decision, and they're not going to do that. But will leap at the chance for Trump. It's been a clear double standard for years.
Plenty of left-leaning people get banned as well.
It begs the question... who's in charge here? The government or the corporations?
Well, it is a private company's site, so I would assume the corporation. If I walked into a Starbucks and started being rude to patrons, I can easily be removed on a whim. Just because it is a place that encourages social interactions does not mean that they have to allow interactions they do not like. I do not see the difference here. Twitter is used for formal announcements because Trump himself has decided that it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
I think it’s a threat directed at private gun-owning citizens that would be willing to take the law into their own hands. I’m old enough to remember the L.A. riots, where the police essentially peace’d out and let the resulting storm “work” itself out. It was God-awful for everyone involved, from the looters to the business owners to the innocent bystanders watching idly by. Trump is warning the looters that they are…
At this point I feel like Twitter is _trying_ to push Trump's buttons. 4 years of not censoring Trump's tweets and now all of a sudden they have an ethical obligation? Which straw broke the camel's back?
I really don't understand what part of Trump's tweet is "glorifying" violence, can anyone help me out on the rationale?
Is this the plan?
This looks more and more like than if the goal would be moving from saving most people possible to culling people in the undesired groups and focusing in saving people in the correct groups. First targeting the more gullible and vulnerable to make them to try unsafe remedies (that only really ignorant people would fall for), then telling people that masks are useless or harassing people that uses it, and now this.
Communities are dumb by default, but are composed of smart people. I would love to see Spike Lee, or Whoopi Goldberg, or Michelle Obama, or Jay-Z to ask people to be smarter than that and keep themselves chill, cold thinking and safe. Going out in a rioting mass at this moment only does a favor to racist people. Don't fall for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read up on the history of the phrase "when looting starts, shooting starts"
I read up on it's use in 1967. ...and it didn't really add anything. Looting leads to police/national guard having to restore order through violence. There's no hidden meaning here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
No, I don't think it was. A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything. It is an observation. Just like it was your observation (and opinion) that it said something different. The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?
Humans are not robots, however, and putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change the very clear nature of his message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, Trump, the guy who had a platform plank complaining about his predecessors' use of executive orders as "power grabs" [0], actually issued an executive order about Twitter's TOS ? 0 - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-19/trump-...
It's nothing new. Politics is a team based sport. My brother calls Obama "King Obama" but is still a huge fan of Trump. I've discussed some of this stuff with him: in his eyes, Obama did stuff he shouldn't have, so Trump can do stuff he shouldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> essentially calling for violence Ironic that a microblogging service leads to lack of nuance. who would of thought? My first read of trump's tweet was explaining the national guard has to move in because 'looting leads to shooting'. As in, we have to restore order to avoid more people getting shot. At the time Trump tweeted this, there was already one death from a pawn store owner shooting a looter. So depending on…
Don't be so disingenuous. The phrase is famous and it obviously is obviously not intent on trying to quell violence. I know to be contrarian and radically 'rational' is popular among tech types but it doesn't mean you have to bury your head in the sand when what is being said is so clear.
[Edit: Reading further down the discussion gives some context. That's... disturbing. Still, you are also assuming bad faith on the part of others, and that's not how things are supposed to be done on HN.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that the rules are being enforced selectively. Just this week Twitter fact checked Trump's opinion on mail voter fraud by linking to other experts' opinions. It seems more like a move to influence the election rather than enforcing the rules.
Selective enforcement happens everywhere in the internet. For example if you go to T_D in Reddit, they will absolutely delete any anti-Trump posts. Does this mean Reddit is influencing elections ?
Twitter needs to be taken down today!