851–860 of 1001 posts
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…
Erm, what? This is just not true, and is a false dichotomy. Moderation is hard. Always has been. Stuff will slip through the cracks. POTUS has the most popular (and currently most controversial - note, that's _controversial_ not _extreme_ or some other morph) so it's easy to see why Twitter are on top of it. Other blue-checked accounts, whilst more "important" than unverified, just simply don't compare to the importa…
It's absolutely true, and has absolutely nothing to do with moderation "being hard". As someone who absolutely opposes Trump, but also absolutely opposes our many wars and global bombings, I'm horrified on a daily basis (and have been since 2009 when I joined Twitter) by open calls for violence against a wide variety of countries from Syria to Venezuela to Iran. When has Twitter ever suspended anyone (let alone a public figure, or even Trump himself, who has called for violence against other countries many times) a single time for openly calling for violence against the people of any of the countries? The answer is never. Its beyond absurd, bordering on delusional, to pretend that Twitter's actions here weren't nakedly political and have absolutely nothing to do with a standard against, "fomenting violence".
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…
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.
This comment is all sorts of wrong. Military "bullets" (they're called rounds, actually) are designed to be optimized for performance in a warfare environment. That means accuracy, and range. A hollow point round is design to expand and be a stopping shot - with one round - and not continue to travel large distances, which puts other people at risk. Cops can carry those because if they're in a crowded environment fir…
You're probably right on overpenetration though.
> accuracy
For accuracy up to a few hundred rounds you likely want boat tail hollow point, not a steel penetrator. Just look at the loads for prs, cmp, etc. Military bullets are not made to be the most accurate.
> Yeah no one will care about this once an actual near-peer war kicks off.
Probably right, though restrictions on bullet types have been around for like over a hundred years, and most modern US bullets adhere to the spirit of that.
It's also worth pointing out that there are a whole bunch of those international agreements that the US hasn't signed. Cluster bombs, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people aren't taking into account the visibility of Trump's twitter. Trump making violence-glorifying or factually incorrect or medically dangerous tweets is far different from other twitter user's or even other blue-check-mark users because his reach is far wider than the vast majority of those users. Further, Trump has an established track record of doing this repeatedly. Those two facts establish a cl…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This movement is about centuries of unjustness. To me, it is appropriate that the occasional bystander and business is overlooked. That doesn't mean that if you were my sibling, or friend, or business that I wouldn't be entitled to express personal pain. But the magnitude of my pain is nothing next to the pain that's led up to this, and no it wouldn't be appropriate for it to get remotely equal attention. Sure, ideal…
Where was this movement when Justine Damond was shot in the gut by a black cop in Minneapolis? I don't recall any protests, let alone riots or burning down the city. And if your expression of pain includes looting booze from a liquor store or a TV from Target, what exactly are you trying to say? By the way, those bystanders and local businesses owners are people of color too.
That shooting wasn't part of a system of institutional and deep rooted racism. Neither was it part of a system where white cops routinely harass black people with no basis other than the colour of their skin; where white cops use horrifyingly excessive violence and all too often murder black suspects, bystanders and innocents - a system where the perpetrators of that violence and murder are almost guaranteed to face no repercusions at all. A system of ingrained inquality that spans decades.
Black people are harassed, racially abused, set upon and shot frequently by white cops in the USA - and the videos we see pretty much on a daily basis in the news and on twitter are only the tip of the iceberg.
As someone in the UK, the the inequality and racism that still exists in the USA, "land of the free", is mind boggling, sickening even. Something has to change, so yes, I can fully understand protests and rioting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the lies are obvious, why do they need "fact checking"?
Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been democratized by the internet. We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate change is manu…
The question is, if it's hard to figure out who you can trust, then who can you trust to decide what's fact and what's fiction?
I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous. Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.
I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.
The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
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
I think Twitter user @HoarseWisperer summed it up quite well: I’m not sure “They aren’t letting us act like *other* warlords.” is as strong an argument as you think.
This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for all rules violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which should probably be banned.) Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do right now with NS…
All tweets containing muted words will be omitted from your timeline, or if they show up in a thread you're viewing, hidden in-place with a button to reveal. I use this feature liberally. Twitter would be unbearable without it.