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

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by jwcrux »

andrepd wrote: post #870
seesawtron wrote: post #849

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.

It is low. Estimates [0] put the number closer to 500M/day.

[0] https://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/#source...

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

#882

Post by mrlala »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #718
ssorc3 wrote: post #695

So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?

It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms. For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network. CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly. Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their…

I still find this to be such a silly comparison, really.

CNN is a publisher.. they pay people to be on TV, they pay people to write articles. Of course CNN (the company) is liable for what it puts out, because they are literally creating 100% of the content and paying people to do it. So if they are slandering someone with no basis, it's logical to say "Uh CNN is literally paying people to write lies to mislead people".

Now let's take a site like HN. People post articles here, people comment on articles. HN isn't "creating" any of the content like CNN. So obviously some random person posting a story or commenting complete bullshit is not HN's goal.

Now what's the argument... that as soon as HN starts to flag something as misleading, remove "spam" (who determines what is a spam article?), then suddenly they are put into a publisher realm and can get sued for what is or is not on there?

I mean.. to me that is LAUGHABLE that someone wants to argue as soon as a site like reddit/twitter/hn starts to do anything to the content they treated like a publisher and are liable for the content. This already happens a billion times a day across all those platforms anyway.

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

#883

Post by arminiusreturns »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #411
partiallypro wrote: post #333

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…

> I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them As a Twitter user, I've been concerned with this as well. Clicking on the Minneapolis riots "trend", roughly 1/3 of the top tweets were promoting violence while the overwhelming majority of the remainder were merely sympathetic toward the violence, with only a small sliver denouncing the violence. Note that I do…

It's because lots of people don't want to admit the issues with the current state of affairs with big-tech social media, such as lopsided and selective enforcement of the rules...

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

#884

Post by foobarbecue »

cmurf wrote: post #879
zapita wrote: 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…

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…

"Plausible" does not "indicate" "probable". It's actually a lot closer to "possible". What you've done there is textbook strawman.

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

#885

Post by montagg »

logicslave wrote: post #826
zapita wrote: 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'd love to live in this world, but it is not one I think anyone can afford to live in. This man is a true narcissist who has very little respect for the office, the institutions he's responsible for, or more than half the country. All sorts of things that were very far from reality are no longer.

But I would love to be able to agree with you. That would be a better world. But the world we live in is where the President says "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," a racist dog whistle to the 1960s, who "jokes" about staying past any term limits, where enablers in Congress and in the media allow him to toe the line of criminal behavior with no accountability as long as it benefits them. That's reality. I wish it were different, but I cannot take your position and reconcile it with what's in front of us today.

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

#886

Post by foobarbecue »

fdeage wrote: post #828
ardy42 wrote: 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…

I would never let a machine automate any decision regarding Trump's account, considering that any action would be scrutinized by the entire world and could have massive repercussions... So definitely not "a counter incremented somewhere". This is a political decision.

Yes, a political decision to manually increment a counter.

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

#887

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jameslk wrote: post #663
creaghpatr wrote: post #292

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

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 the tweet in question also talks about Palestinian independence, it's not talking about "internal jihad". It's talking about violence. And when it talks about "even if death", it's talking about being killed when engaged in violence, not about when engaged in peaceful resistance.

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

#888

Post by LordDragonfang »

throwawaysea wrote: post #542
tomp wrote: post #171

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…

We can hope Twitter adopts and enforces policies equally across the board, but they won't and I don't think they can either. As an example of how they won't do so, consider that there are people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter right now, and they have not been banned or had their tweets/accounts hidden. Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself, amplifying rioting sup…

>people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter right now

>Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself

Apparently, retweeting a list of supplies to help protect yourself from bodily harm from violent police is "literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property"

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

#889

Post by montagg »

cmurf wrote: post #879
zapita wrote: 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…

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…

During the Colfax Massacre during Andrew Johnson's presidency, there were two factions that claimed they had won the gubernatorial election for Louisiana. They both tried to set up governments. White Democrats murdered freed black men and Republicans in the streets. The President at the time was sympathetic to the south's cause and only reluctantly sent in the army to take charge of the situation.

This is already part of American history. You're describing some amazing world where people follow the rules even during chaotic situations, and I guarantee that will not happen if there's a contested Presidential election with Donald Trump on the losing side. It will be a lot more like the racist South trying to claw back its power, because his most ardent followers are exactly the same kinds of people. He doesn't need to be good at being an autocrat, he just needs to encourage enough people to support him no matter what, and eventually he'll encourage someone who IS good at it. So you're right that he is not the risk, alone, but he's not alone. He's surrounded by enablers, criminals, and domestic terrorists who have a vested interest in his success.

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

#890

Post by ardy42 »

cmurf wrote: post #879
zapita wrote: 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…

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…

> 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 on, we'll need a Congress.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how would there be "no election" to that degree? Rather than a single, centrally-coordinated federal election, doesn't the US have 50 state-coordinated elections (emphasis on the plural)? So to truly cancel the elections in November, you'd have to have buy in from all 50 state governments. In a slightly more realistic (yet still unrealistic) scenario you'd still have a POTUS, but one elected by electors from the states that held elections, and there'd still be a House of Representatives, but only with members from states that didn't participate in the cancellation.

I suppose the situation would be similar to what must have happened during the Civil War.

Post reply on HN