5 ms·

Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. It's not up to Twitter to try and alter

by skj 9y ago

Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. It's not up to Twitter to try and alter the national dialogue.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ. Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but now it's official.) > Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. And that's why reporting about him is valuable and ought to be protected, and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of government tools of communication. It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic political opponents.
- liquidise 9y ago
  Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ". It makes twitter a place where world leaders are given a generally unfiltered communication tool. This has nothing to do with bias. If anything it is arguably the absence of bias.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ" Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not. Allowing such accounts freedom from content and participation standards that are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants, OTOH, does.
- username223 9y ago
  "Pro-Administration propaganda organ?" Before the election, it was a useful propaganda organ. A decade from now, I think it will be seen as a record of the thoughts of a senile old man who somehow became the leader of a large and powerful nation.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Before the election, it was a useful propaganda organ. It's always before an election.
    - username223 9y ago
      Not always (see Russia), but Trump recognized Twitter's power while Clinton did not. I don't expect that asymmetry to happen again; either both candidates will hire Twitter teams, or Twitter will go out of business.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > I don't expect that asymmetry to happen again; With Twitter granting preferential status to “world leaders” not available to others including internal critics and challengers to such leaders, asymmetry no longer needs to occur as a matter of candidate recognition, because it's baked in as a matter of Twitter policy. Even if such privileged were granted to official challengers, there would be a by-policy assymetric, because in practice political debate which affects election outcomes is continuous, not just during particular phases of the electoral cycle.
davidw 9y ago
If that disturbs you, you'll be shocked to find out that there are also some people who believe that he should be held accountable to the laws and constitution of the United States, although that set of people appears to not intersect with the set of Republicans in power.
brighteyes 9y ago
If Twitter would ban you or me for saying what Trump says, why shouldn't Trump be banned? It's a matter of fairness and uniformly applying the rules. As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, just not on Twitter. The only sort-of argument I can see here is that the modern state gives the government a monopoly on the use of force, so there is something special about the government already, and maybe Twitter should reflect that by not banning the government for acting that way. But I don't really buy that logic. In the end, either Twitter is a place where threats of violence are allowed, or not. Letting only some people make such threats makes no sense.
tb303 9y ago
Yes, what people are upset about, myself included, is that Trump is not held to the same ToC and https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... that everyday users are held to, because his batshit craziness is "newsworthy".

by skj 9y ago

Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. It's not up to Twitter to try and alter the national dialogue.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Are there really people here suggesting that Twitter block the POTUS? There are people seriously suggesting that Donald J. Trump be held to the same standards with regard to content as other Twitter users, rather than Twitter being a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ. Twitter has clearly decided against that (that's been clear for some time, but now it's official.) > Look, he's a madman, but he's also the president. And that's why reporting about him is valuable and ought to be protected, and it certainly a reason that he has disproportionate power of government tools of communication. It's not a reason for a private entity to grant him preferential liberties in a discussion forum that are not granted to others, particularly his domestic political opponents.

liquidise 9y ago
Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ". It makes twitter a place where world leaders are given a generally unfiltered communication tool. This has nothing to do with bias. If anything it is arguably the absence of bias.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Allowing accounts of world leaders does not make twitter "a biased, pro-Administration propaganda organ" Allowing accounts of “world leaders” (so designated by Twitter) does not. Allowing such accounts freedom from content and participation standards that are applied as a bases for restricting or banning other participants, OTOH, does.
username223 9y ago
"Pro-Administration propaganda organ?" Before the election, it was a useful propaganda organ. A decade from now, I think it will be seen as a record of the thoughts of a senile old man who somehow became the leader of a large and powerful nation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Before the election, it was a useful propaganda organ. It's always before an election.
  - username223 9y ago
    Not always (see Russia), but Trump recognized Twitter's power while Clinton did not. I don't expect that asymmetry to happen again; either both candidates will hire Twitter teams, or Twitter will go out of business.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I don't expect that asymmetry to happen again; With Twitter granting preferential status to “world leaders” not available to others including internal critics and challengers to such leaders, asymmetry no longer needs to occur as a matter of candidate recognition, because it's baked in as a matter of Twitter policy. Even if such privileged were granted to official challengers, there would be a by-policy assymetric, because in practice political debate which affects election outcomes is continuous, not just during particular phases of the electoral cycle.

davidw 9y ago

If that disturbs you, you'll be shocked to find out that there are also some people who believe that he should be held accountable to the laws and constitution of the United States, although that set of people appears to not intersect with the set of Republicans in power.

brighteyes 9y ago

If Twitter would ban you or me for saying what Trump says, why shouldn't Trump be banned? It's a matter of fairness and uniformly applying the rules. As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, just not on Twitter. The only sort-of argument I can see here is that the modern state gives the government a monopoly on the use of force, so there is something special about the government already, and maybe Twitter should reflect that by not banning the government for acting that way. But I don't really buy that logic. In the end, either Twitter is a place where threats of violence are allowed, or not. Letting only some people make such threats makes no sense.

tb303 9y ago

Yes, what people are upset about, myself included, is that Trump is not held to the same ToC and https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... that everyday users are held to, because his batshit craziness is "newsworthy".