5 ms·

Not a fan of Twitter, but kudos for doing the right thing here, whatever their motivations. Free speech is being attacked by the far right and the far left it s

Not a fan of Twitter, but kudos for doing the right thing here, whatever their motivations. Free speech is being attacked by the far right and the far left it seems these days. Lets keep this thread on the rails a bit and thank someone for taking the high road, no matter how expected it should be.

jsonne 10y ago
I agree with them for not removing this person. Twitter should be a free speech platform. Unfortunately they've proven remarkably inconsistent in the application, and people on the right are going to call this hypocritical. While it may or may not be true it does, on the surface, appear to be that way. I hope that moving forward Twitter can aspire to be a true free speech platform where they don't remove anyone for criticism or parody of public figures, but I won't get my hopes up.
- kerkeslager 10y ago
  This is one of the major reasons not to use social media. The Internet as a whole has free speech inasmuch as governments protect free speech, but centralized social media has no such protections, and as unpopular opinions make sites unprofitable, they are incentivized to censor. The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    > The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience. You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't. Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
    - michaelmrose 10y ago
      You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
      - s73ver 10y ago
        Unfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
      - kerkeslager 10y ago
        > You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    Please don't fall into the trap of calling the things that are banned just "unpopular". We're not talking about disagreements over tax policy. These things are harassment, they are threats of violence, and they are white nationalist/white supremacist garbage.
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      Leaving aside threats of violence, which are properly illegal, what you're arguing for here is for free speech to be limited to the expression of ideas with which you agree.
      - jolux 10y ago
        This is true in the extreme but to reduce white supremacy to a mere disagreement is reductive and also willfully naive, I think.
        duncan_bayne 10y ago
        And it's the extreme that matters. Free speech is a human right.
        s73ver 10y ago
        I don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
        duncan_bayne 10y ago
        I think we're in agreement here. My point was relating to the legal freedom of speech, not any obligation on Twitter's part re. the use of their platform.
      - s73ver 10y ago
        Not at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associate with them.
sremani 10y ago
I will reserve my kudos and thanks, of course its easier if you take the high road when the account concurs with your political views. If they can take this road, esp. when they oppose those political views then respect, kudos and thanks will be showered.
- jackmott 10y ago
  They still have nazis on there, is that not tolerant enough for you?
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Not only that, many of the self-titled nazis have verified accounts. Twitter is remarkably broad in support of political speech, even that which is against its values.
- killwhitey 10y ago
  Have you forgotten about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks-related_Twitter_court_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks-related_Twitter_cour...
  - sremani 10y ago
    In 2010, JA/Wikileaks were Saints of the Left, until they went rogue in 2016 with DNC leaks. I would reconsider my stand if you provided a better example.
- s73ver 10y ago
  They already have.
always_good 10y ago
> Not a fan of Twitter, but Aside, why do people write this kind of thing? What does it clarify? It's not like you're taking a controversial stance here. In fact, you're taking the same one as the article and the rest of our echo chamber. I don't unconditionally hate Twitter either, but I don't try to get a cookie for it.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  I believe it's in the name of full disclosure. Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.
  - always_good 10y ago
    Why not just add it to every post? > Disclosure: I usually hold the opposite viewpoint > of the one that I just expressed. Does it make all of your opinions hold more weight? Or is it, in fact, meaningless?
    - supernovae 10y ago
      meaningless and contrived if you ask me
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      Maybe because 'opposite' is not an accurate statement, when the issue isn't a simple dichotomy. In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Normally (dis)liking an entity is not "the opposite viewpoint of the one I just expressed". That's reductionist BS. It would only be meaningless to put similar language on every post because you would presumably be lying. Is the distinction there not obvious?
hyperliner 10y ago
I think it's because the political environment is so polarized that one must a) simply comment what an echo chamber expects to earn a cookie or b) nuance your answer or statements to make sure you are not blindly classified as "left-winger" or "right-winger" etc. I mean, it's not like people want to risk being fired from their job just because they posted something in some random forum, but that is exactly what could happen in some quarters. While HN tends to have really smart people voicing opinions, there are also people with knee-jerk reactions for whom anything that does not fit their view of the world require an immediate inquisition. (Note how I started my last paragraph. I did not have to do that because it's obvious, but I have to because some people would then flame over the second sentence alone).

jsonne 10y ago

I agree with them for not removing this person. Twitter should be a free speech platform. Unfortunately they've proven remarkably inconsistent in the application, and people on the right are going to call this hypocritical. While it may or may not be true it does, on the surface, appear to be that way. I hope that moving forward Twitter can aspire to be a true free speech platform where they don't remove anyone for criticism or parody of public figures, but I won't get my hopes up.

kerkeslager 10y ago
This is one of the major reasons not to use social media. The Internet as a whole has free speech inasmuch as governments protect free speech, but centralized social media has no such protections, and as unpopular opinions make sites unprofitable, they are incentivized to censor. The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience. You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't. Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      Unfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
    - kerkeslager 10y ago
      > You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
- s73ver 10y ago
  Please don't fall into the trap of calling the things that are banned just "unpopular". We're not talking about disagreements over tax policy. These things are harassment, they are threats of violence, and they are white nationalist/white supremacist garbage.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    Leaving aside threats of violence, which are properly illegal, what you're arguing for here is for free speech to be limited to the expression of ideas with which you agree.
    - jolux 10y ago
      This is true in the extreme but to reduce white supremacy to a mere disagreement is reductive and also willfully naive, I think.
      - duncan_bayne 10y ago
        And it's the extreme that matters. Free speech is a human right.
        s73ver 10y ago
        I don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
        duncan_bayne 10y ago
        I think we're in agreement here. My point was relating to the legal freedom of speech, not any obligation on Twitter's part re. the use of their platform.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      Not at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associate with them.

sremani 10y ago

I will reserve my kudos and thanks, of course its easier if you take the high road when the account concurs with your political views. If they can take this road, esp. when they oppose those political views then respect, kudos and thanks will be showered.

jackmott 10y ago
They still have nazis on there, is that not tolerant enough for you?
- linkregister 10y ago
  Not only that, many of the self-titled nazis have verified accounts. Twitter is remarkably broad in support of political speech, even that which is against its values.
killwhitey 10y ago
Have you forgotten about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks-related_Twitter_court_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks-related_Twitter_cour...
- sremani 10y ago
  In 2010, JA/Wikileaks were Saints of the Left, until they went rogue in 2016 with DNC leaks. I would reconsider my stand if you provided a better example.
s73ver 10y ago
They already have.

always_good 10y ago

> Not a fan of Twitter, but Aside, why do people write this kind of thing? What does it clarify? It's not like you're taking a controversial stance here. In fact, you're taking the same one as the article and the rest of our echo chamber. I don't unconditionally hate Twitter either, but I don't try to get a cookie for it.

stagbeetle 10y ago
I believe it's in the name of full disclosure. Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.
- always_good 10y ago
  Why not just add it to every post? > Disclosure: I usually hold the opposite viewpoint > of the one that I just expressed. Does it make all of your opinions hold more weight? Or is it, in fact, meaningless?
  - supernovae 10y ago
    meaningless and contrived if you ask me
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Maybe because 'opposite' is not an accurate statement, when the issue isn't a simple dichotomy. In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Normally (dis)liking an entity is not "the opposite viewpoint of the one I just expressed". That's reductionist BS. It would only be meaningless to put similar language on every post because you would presumably be lying. Is the distinction there not obvious?

hyperliner 10y ago

I think it's because the political environment is so polarized that one must a) simply comment what an echo chamber expects to earn a cookie or b) nuance your answer or statements to make sure you are not blindly classified as "left-winger" or "right-winger" etc. I mean, it's not like people want to risk being fired from their job just because they posted something in some random forum, but that is exactly what could happen in some quarters. While HN tends to have really smart people voicing opinions, there are also people with knee-jerk reactions for whom anything that does not fit their view of the world require an immediate inquisition. (Note how I started my last paragraph. I did not have to do that because it's obvious, but I have to because some people would then flame over the second sentence alone).