Live data from Hacker News

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

twitter.com

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#871
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If most of the mistakes happen in one direction, then I would argue that there's some other mechanism at work than just "mistakes". Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw... Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...

>Update: admission

This link doesn't say what you claim. It's Dorsey talking about the internal social environment at Twitter's offices, not Twitter's moderation policies.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#872
post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office. At the top management level, they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office (a plausible scenario at this point), and how that scenario affects their bottom line. They probably don’t want US institutions to dissolve into full-blown autocracy... But on the other hand, if that were to happen, then it would…

"they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office" I think you are very far from reality

I dont.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? IMO we would see the opposite, and liberal politicians calling for Twitter to be taken down. One person's soap box is another's tabloid.

> Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? No, it would not, because generally left-wing people don't spread lies with the intention to dissuade people from voting (quite to the contrary, the left wing is fighting for people to have the right and means to vote) or call for storming the White House and start shooting.

Different side of the coin. They often spread lies to persuade people to vote for them. Almost everyone in politics is full of it.

If you believe your side is the good one and the other is bad, it's probably because it's part of your identity. And that prevents you from thinking about it honestly and results in more polarization. Once you accept they're all full of it, you will think more clearly. And you'll have better dialogue with opposing viewpoints.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#874
post #805
post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions". I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter has exempted Trump's accounts from all automated moderation. However, I…

> However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office. At the top management level, they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office (a plausible scenario at this point), and how that scenario affects their bottom line. They probably don’t want US institutions to dissolve into full-blown autocracy... But on the other hand, if that were to happen, then it would…

I'm not any of those things. I'm just down voting you on the basis you're complaining about down votes with personal attacks.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#875
post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could have all been ended before the rioting started if the police officer was charged for his actions. Obviously looting is wrong but peaceful protests obviously aren't working either.

They were fired and will face the justice system, which while it normally moves slowly, will move a little faster in this case thanks to top down pressure. I don't see how in a country with independent judiciary anything more can be done.

Update, the cop was just charged with third degree murder and manslaughter. They could have acted faster, but at least they're acting. I hope they make an example of the guy, but I have my doubts seeing how other similar situations went at trial.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#876

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…

Seriously. Twitter and Facebook are full of liberals talking about "bringing back the guillotine" but I don't see any of that getting censored.

I know what you mean, but that's an insult to actual liberals. You're referring to leftists. They hijacked "liberal" some time ago.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine that accounts of "important" people are handled personally rather than by automated algorithm. As Jack Dorsey points out in this[0] Joe Rogan podcast, the reported tweets by public or algorithm are manually checked at some point. Approx. 4000 employees of Twitter all around the world. Every day 100k (edit: 100M) tweets are sent. The reports of tweets that violate the platform policy are (reported by p…

Only 100k/day? That sounds quite low.

Maybe 100k tweets by people who are checked manually? I'm sure there are millions of tweets send every day.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#878
post #351

The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published. By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awk…

They fucked this up so badly. They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it." Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.

It's a risk. It's not a mistake. I appreciate they are trying to thread a very difficult needle. I'd argue democracy's continued survival is predicated on being able to both have a flattened playing field where every voice is accessible and like-minded people can find each other easily (what the Internet has enabled so far), and a way of inoculating people against lies intended for malicious manipulation (which the Internet has also enabled). Getting there, if we can, will be messy and ugly. Failing will be fatal to the idea that people can effectively self-govern.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#879
post #805
post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions". I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter has exempted Trump's accounts from all automated moderation. However, I…

> However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office. At the top management level, they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office (a plausible scenario at this point), and how that scenario affects their bottom line. They probably don’t want US institutions to dissolve into full-blown autocracy... But on the other hand, if that were to happen, then it would…

I agree that this system is more fragile than most people think; somehow almost preferring automatic government than the tediousness that functioning democracy requires. And sometimes people get a rude reminder of this.

I do not agree that the scenario you're talking about is probable (which is indicated by plausible). Perhaps you mean possible? Sure, but in that case it's also possible money instantly has no meaning, there is no Congress, there are no states, there are no judges or generals, there are no prison sentences, there are no laws at all whatsoever. Nothing matters, everything is possible.

That is a sense of unpredictability a society does not trend toward no matter how ill it is.

But try to understand that completely ending all constitutional order is not how revolutions tend to progress. Even in the U.S. civil war, there were two (federal) constitutions in place for two sets of states. There was order, even in that chaos.

I agree Trump has autocratic tendencies. But he is a weak minded fool. He will not make for a strong autocrat, he even contradicts himself and dithers too much for this. He is Side Show Bob. He's a distraction. To succeed he would need a very high percentage of authority, trust, and compliance - and there's just no way he's going to get that.

I question whether he even does something to sabotage the election. On January 20th his term of office expires. At noon he is not the POTUS if there's been no election. Further, there's no House of Representatives, because their term expires on January 3rd. And 1/3 of Senators are not Senators. But at 12:01pm on January 20th, there is a person who will become POTUS without an election. And that's the President pro tempore of the Senate. Following that, the states will surely already be figuring out how to reinstitute the House through either appointments or new elections. It's not up to the federal government. But to pass new laws, including a new election to make up for the delayed one, we'll need a Congress.

That has never happened. I can tell you many examples from history, things that are way more likely than any of this. Including from American history. Some of those things are violent, even in fact violent for just one person, that are way more likely than autocracy.

Trump's best chance is for the election to proceed.

So, while you can't for sure predict what's going to happen next, just try to have some imagination for rare events that have happened rather than events that have never happened. Trump is a chickenshit asshole but that's like, the least remarkable or interesting thing going on here, because he's been a chickenshit asshole his whole life - not news! And that doesn't really highly qualify (or disqualify) him as an autocrat. He's not going to be one because he's just too incompetent and steps on his own dick every chance he gets. Just try to calm down, let him have enough rope to hang himself, and he will.

Re: Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

#880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the violence though? Or are they applying the stereotypical western misunderstanding of jihad = violence/terrorism? https://news.gallup.com/poll/7333/jihad-holy-war-internal-sp...

When people risk being killed during a jihad, it kinda implies that a text does not refer to a greater jihad aimed at improving one's soul.

Right, which is why "improving one's soul" isn't the only meaning of jihad. This is pointed out in the article I linked.

> The word jihad comes from the Arabic jahada, which is perhaps best translated as "struggle," "effort," or "striving."

This can also be verified with a dictionary or encyclopedia.

> Jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.

> Jihad, also spelled jehad, in Islam, a meritorious struggle or effort. The exact meaning of the term jihād depends on context; it has often been erroneously translated in the West as “holy war.” Jihad, particularly in the religious and ethical realm, primarily refers to the human struggle to promote what is right and to prevent what is wrong

We can twist the word to focus on violence to accommodate some political objective, but that wouldn't be accurate.

Post reply on HN