Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

Post by onemoresoop » Sat, May 30, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

downerending wrote: post #710

onemoresoop wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radicalism and inciting to violence should be bubbled not amplified.

Unfortunately, you're bubbling away people who believe in free speech and free thought as well, and there are probably a lot more of those. edit: Adding a bit more, the people being bubbled away will likely tend to just isolate. You might think you like that idea, but having spent some time in isolation, I will attest that it kind of messes with your head. You lose your "phase lock" with society on a lot of different…

Post by seabass » Sat, May 30, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

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…

Post by ryani » Sat, May 30, 2020, 3:22 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #799

dijit wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have laws in the UK that curtail speech like that, "Inciting violence" is a crime. Which I agree with to some extent, you're not innocent of a crime because you convinced a person to harm another, just because you were too cowardly to get your hands dirty yourself. But the US is rather famously not British, so I'm not sure if it's a relevant thing to add to the discussion.

Part of the issue is if you're hostile to the speaker, you can interpret a call for peace to mean a call for violence. Try to imagine for a moment, that this comment was not made by an evil racist orange man, but someone you like... maybe Ghandi. If Ghandi said: "Looting leads to shooting." Which interpretation would you more likely choose? 1. Please don't loot, it escalates violence and people will get killed 2. Let…

Post by youeseh » Sat, May 30, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

gurkendoktor wrote: post #803

youeseh wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of being the police, Twitter should do what Rotten Tomatoes does. There are plenty of people - journalists and researchers analyzing the facts behind what celebrities say. They should analyze what the analysts say and display a score.

The problem then becomes, who decides which tweets to fact-check? If most politicians at the higher levels are liars, singling out a few of them is unfair even if Trump is notorious for it. Twitter can clearly not fact-check every single tweet on its platform. But what if they did it for every tweet (maybe from a verified account) that X people report for being untruthful? Trump would look bad even if Twitter held ev…

Post by nitwit005 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

lykahb wrote: 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…