5 ms·

Twitter Deletes Tweet about Censorship on Twitter After Retweet by President

34 points by not_a_moth 6y ago

tracer4201 6y ago
The President's tweet: "The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation." I don't know of the radical left controlling Facebook, Instagram, etc., but these are all private companies. 1. Unless Congress enacts some legislation on who can or cannot say what on these websites, what specific power does the Executive branch have? 2. And if they do have the power, does this mean the next administration (if liberal) could technically censure Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity for not being "fair" (whatever that means)? Edit: I'm genuinely curious why the downvotes. Looks like I'm getting censured for asking a question that maybe isn't so convenient.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  >what specific power does the Executive branch have? They could just go after any company that doesn't bow to them for something like antitrust. Hell- make something up. Legal battles cost money and business and Uncle Sam has basically limitless cash to use for this.
  - xtracto 6y ago
    Or Taxes? Weren't a lot of historical criminals indicted for tax crimes instead of murder, kidnap or other things they committed?
s9w 6y ago
inb4 "muh private company" inb4 [flagged] inb4 [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here.
  - s9w 6y ago
    Showing people a mirror is something that happens way too rarely here. At least allow people to be confronted with their bias.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't "show people a mirror" here. Confronting people with your image of their bias is only going to provoke flamewar. Perhaps if you were their therapist or spiritual advisor, something more might be possible. Here we are in the opposite situation: on the the internet, at the shallow end of the pool.
aboringusername 6y ago
I've often wondered what the precedent is when the president is the one sharing so called "fake news". Does propaganda count as "fake news"? Who gets to decide what is and isn't real? I guess those with the most power are immune to rules about what they can and can't share. Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 6y ago
  >Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post. Trump is a special case. He's the President and his personal Twitter account is a de-facto official channel for communicating policy. The American people have a Constitutional right to hear what their leader has to say (even if it's batshit insane) and to "petition government for redress of grievances" (which is why he can't block critics anymore.)
MrStonedOne 6y ago
Let me just sum up the soon to be ensuing argument. Side a: twitter is a private company, and has the legal right to ban or not ban what ever they want for what ever reason they want. Side b: but i'm a private person who can bitch or not bitch about twitter's use of that right for what ever reason that i want. ... Rinse Repeat. Profit.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Is there a way to prove it was flagged or removed by Twitter? This is the problem with censorship - the very nature of doing it enables the complainers to be victim, even if you didn't actually do it! Twitter should unabashedly not delete anything unless it is a direct call to violence or an imminent threat to public safety. If they do wish to curtail misinformation, they should label it with their rationale. "This video makes a series of factually incorrect statements" or "This video is full of bullshit and lies and you're a fool for believing it" or something. Clearly, there is a lot of misinformation/disinformation made to sow division, and Michelle Malkin/the alt-right, Fox News "truthers" are as awful as they come. But the very possibility that Twitter could or would remove a video, not discuss it or list a reason why, is itself fuel for the alt-right's garbage. There is no easy solution, no easy win against misinformation. I believe, though, that light is usually better than dark with these people.
- loopz 6y ago
  Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its private property. That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right. And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth. Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards. Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".
djohnston 6y ago
There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education. America barely has that, and I don't see any signs of this improving.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  Frankly, some of the most well educated people in my social media sphere are still guilty of distributing blatantly false and misleading information. It's just way easier to retween/share some twitter screenshot without even giving it even a small fact-check as long as it agrees with your political leanings.
- ScottFree 6y ago
  > There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education. False. Maybe we should ban you from commenting on any of the popular platforms to prevent you from spreading such blatantly harmful misinformation. ... you see how that happens? Party A with access and power doesn't want you to say something, so you get banned. It has nothing to do with misinformation or education.
  - djohnston 6y ago
    right but im saying that is NOT a good solution, not really a solution at all
Apreche 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
unethical_ban 6y ago
Further irony when HN flags a post about censorship describing a social network censoring someone. It's technical, it's political. I don't see the issue.

34 points by not_a_moth 6y ago

The President's tweet: "The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation." I don't know of the radical left controlling Facebook, Instagram, etc., but these are all private companies. 1. Unless Congress enacts some legislation on who can or cannot say what on these websites, what specific power does the Executive branch have? 2. And if they do have the power, does this mean the next administration (if liberal) could technically censure Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity for not being "fair" (whatever that means)? Edit: I'm genuinely curious why the downvotes. Looks like I'm getting censured for asking a question that maybe isn't so convenient.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>what specific power does the Executive branch have? They could just go after any company that doesn't bow to them for something like antitrust. Hell- make something up. Legal battles cost money and business and Uncle Sam has basically limitless cash to use for this.
- xtracto 6y ago
  Or Taxes? Weren't a lot of historical criminals indicted for tax crimes instead of murder, kidnap or other things they committed?

s9w 6y ago

inb4 "muh private company" inb4 [flagged] inb4 [deleted]

dang 6y ago
Please don't do this here.
- s9w 6y ago
  Showing people a mirror is something that happens way too rarely here. At least allow people to be confronted with their bias.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't "show people a mirror" here. Confronting people with your image of their bias is only going to provoke flamewar. Perhaps if you were their therapist or spiritual advisor, something more might be possible. Here we are in the opposite situation: on the the internet, at the shallow end of the pool.

aboringusername 6y ago

I've often wondered what the precedent is when the president is the one sharing so called "fake news". Does propaganda count as "fake news"? Who gets to decide what is and isn't real? I guess those with the most power are immune to rules about what they can and can't share. Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krapp 6y ago
>Trump could literally tweet to inject yourself with bleach and I doubt twitter would remove the post. Trump is a special case. He's the President and his personal Twitter account is a de-facto official channel for communicating policy. The American people have a Constitutional right to hear what their leader has to say (even if it's batshit insane) and to "petition government for redress of grievances" (which is why he can't block critics anymore.)

MrStonedOne 6y ago

Let me just sum up the soon to be ensuing argument. Side a: twitter is a private company, and has the legal right to ban or not ban what ever they want for what ever reason they want. Side b: but i'm a private person who can bitch or not bitch about twitter's use of that right for what ever reason that i want. ... Rinse Repeat. Profit.

dang 6y ago
Please don't do this here.

unethical_ban 6y ago

Is there a way to prove it was flagged or removed by Twitter? This is the problem with censorship - the very nature of doing it enables the complainers to be victim, even if you didn't actually do it! Twitter should unabashedly not delete anything unless it is a direct call to violence or an imminent threat to public safety. If they do wish to curtail misinformation, they should label it with their rationale. "This video makes a series of factually incorrect statements" or "This video is full of bullshit and lies and you're a fool for believing it" or something. Clearly, there is a lot of misinformation/disinformation made to sow division, and Michelle Malkin/the alt-right, Fox News "truthers" are as awful as they come. But the very possibility that Twitter could or would remove a video, not discuss it or list a reason why, is itself fuel for the alt-right's garbage. There is no easy solution, no easy win against misinformation. I believe, though, that light is usually better than dark with these people.

loopz 6y ago
Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its private property. That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right. And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth. Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards. Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".

djohnston 6y ago

There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education. America barely has that, and I don't see any signs of this improving.

Exmoor 6y ago
Frankly, some of the most well educated people in my social media sphere are still guilty of distributing blatantly false and misleading information. It's just way easier to retween/share some twitter screenshot without even giving it even a small fact-check as long as it agrees with your political leanings.
ScottFree 6y ago
> There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free society other than education. False. Maybe we should ban you from commenting on any of the popular platforms to prevent you from spreading such blatantly harmful misinformation. ... you see how that happens? Party A with access and power doesn't want you to say something, so you get banned. It has nothing to do with misinformation or education.
- djohnston 6y ago
  right but im saying that is NOT a good solution, not really a solution at all

Apreche 6y ago

https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

unethical_ban 6y ago

Further irony when HN flags a post about censorship describing a social network censoring someone. It's technical, it's political. I don't see the issue.