3 ms·

> Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social

> Censoring the president hurts the Ammerican people more than censoring a normal individual. I don't buy that a single bit. Any sort of "censorship" on social media of a sitting US President (heck, even a former President) is going to be a major international news event.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted? The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying. Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,
- king_magic 6y ago
  Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another. But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly. I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform. The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
    - king_magic 6y ago
      So Twitter is now the only way to know that Trump is a bigot, racist and proto-dictator?
      - ta17711771 6y ago
        This is not what the comment you are responding to is saying, please address those points.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I agree that banning trump would be a major news event. How does that relate to my statement that you quoted? The president can announce war, policies, and executive orders. Normal individuals can not. Preventing individuals from seeing these announcements is obviously more impactful than whatever the typical citizen is saying. Even if the speech is violent, hateful, or racist, it valuable to see it. Perhaps even moreso because of the content,

king_magic 6y ago
Except there's a ton of other channels those announcements also go through, and legitimate announcements are not what people are worried about. Legitimate speech will be seen one way or another. But violent/hateful/racist speech has no place in social networks, and should be struck down immediately.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If the president wants to express violent/hateful/racist speech, it is even more important the public see it, so that they can judge it and vote accordingly. I would rather know if the president is a bigot, and their latest misguided thoughts, than not know. I want others to be able to see and judge the behavior as well. Therefore I think the public interest is to provide a free and unmoderated platform. The solution to a president you dont like is voting them out of office, not gagging them so they appear less offensive. If you dont personally want to see the content > unfollow
  - king_magic 6y ago
    So Twitter is now the only way to know that Trump is a bigot, racist and proto-dictator?
    - ta17711771 6y ago
      This is not what the comment you are responding to is saying, please address those points.