6 ms·

Trump's recent tweets that were flagged by Twitter weren't disagreements, they were antidemocratic.

by minimaxir 6y ago

googthrowaway42 6y ago
Censoring the elected president is inherently anti democratic.
- brown9-2 6y ago
  A warning is not censorship.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    That is a depraved level of disingenuousness.
    - brown9-2 6y ago
      So is telling the public that there was massive fraud in all the states you lost and refusing to admit defeat!
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        He didn't allege massive fraud in all the states he lost. There are severe irregularities that have been recorded in many different areas within certain swing states. He has no obligation to admit defeat until the electors vote on the President in mid December. Another morally depraved take.
- squidfish 6y ago
  There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Trump can say what he wants, but Twitter absolutely has a choice what, if anything, they allow to be published on their platform. FWIW, Trump's time on Twitter is winding down. The only reason he hasn't received the ban-hammer from Twitter is his unique position as an elected official. January 20th shortly after noon, he will no longer exist on Twitter.
  - drdec 6y ago
    > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Interesting. Would the right-wing be better off if Twitter were a government-owned entity, thus ensuring that their right to free speech would always allow unfettered access? Would we ever be able to convince them to trust the government enough that that was actually the case? Would they be able to overcome their impulse in favor of privatization over nationalization to allow something like that to happen?
  - nostromo 6y ago
    > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. So, do you support net neutrality? It's the ISP's platform, they can do what they want with it... right?
- eertami 6y ago
  No it isn't. I'm quite sure you know it isn't. Being _unable_ to censor the president is what would be anti-democratic. Only in authoritarian regimes would a leader be able to force private companies to spread their message. In a democratic country, you have the freedom to choose what you want to support and not support.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposing ideas.
hintymad 6y ago
But what gives Twitter the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong?
- dbt00 6y ago
  If he doesn't like it Trump can start his own site where he can say whatever he wants. There's no reason Twitter can't moderate his posts however they see fit, and in fact his position as elected official shielded him from most normal consequences of his behavior. Consider how judges around the country have responded to his campaign's legal filings, it's not like Twitter was out on a limb here.
  - hintymad 6y ago
    That I totally agree. Twitter is a private company, after all. In the meantime, Twitter is editorializing, and they should not enjoy Section 230.
    - geofft 6y ago
      What's an example in your mind of a case where someone can remove content and retain Section 230 immunity?
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Illegal content, in however the courts have agreed what 'illegal' means. Also spam, to what a reasonable person would consider spam -- and a political opinion isn't spam.
      - afiori 6y ago
        removing is not editorializing. Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet. It is somewhat similar to choosing a title for a article, even if you leave the content unchanged you can significantly change the message or the effect by choosing an appropriate title. In this context twitter is not simply recommending accounts you might like, or refusing to deliver tweets, they are actually engaging with the speech of the user. As an analogy consider someone that retweets and article discussing some crimes. this person post a link and says: "I can't believe Person A is actually a murderer", in this case regardless of the article content the poster is exposed to a potential lawsuit in case Person A can prove its innocence. Twitter is closer to this example that to simply choosing to remove content. (specifically this does not apply to the removed trump tweets)
exolymph 6y ago
"Disagreements" and "antidemocratic" aren't mutually exclusive categories.
- wolfram74 6y ago
  I don't know that the /worst/ time to start a conversation about ending the practice of voting for office is when you're losing an elected office, but it's pretty bad.
rayiner 6y ago
The story about Hunter Biden wasn’t anti-Democratic. Tabloid fodder, but not anti-Democratic.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Didn't it just turn out not to be true?
  - afiori 6y ago
    No, the story simply had very little evidence and so had no definitive claims, but for now there is no evidence that those email where planted by foreign agents nor that the content of the laptop was falsified (for example while the Biden campaign dismissed the story they never claimed the emails to be false). Moreover a witness that was part of that email thread confirmed the conclusion reached in the original story.
- skuhn 6y ago
  Twitter didn't block that post for that reason. Also it wasn't on Trump's account, it was the NY Post which is, as you say, a tabloid. As you can see here, he posted about it and there is no warning label: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1317825484495880192 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13178254844958801...
- ummonk 6y ago
  That was blocked for privacy violations. And Twitter allowed discussion of the story, just not hotlinks to the story itself which was publishing stolen private content.
prossercj 6y ago
Can we not disagree about the value of democracy?
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  We all live in a society that functions the way it does (for good and bad) because we have some shared foundational beliefs in something like democracy. While I have mixed opinions about digital censorship in general, it should not be surprising for a (quasi)democratic society that values free speech to silence those in power who would encourage large groups to question those core values. This is especially true since western society regularly tries to interpret and judge intent along with what people say, and it has judged that Trump's intent is self-serving and not an honest disagreement, and as a result it has deemed it at least somewhat acceptable to censor him.
- dlp211 6y ago
  This isn't some philosophy or political science class. We are a Constitutional Republic which is a fancy way of saying that we are a type of democracy. One which the POTUS swore an oath to uphold.
- Kephael 6y ago
  Why is it inherently good? If we import 50 million poor people what do you think would appeal to them? Why wouldn't large groups just vote themselves access to other people's wealth? If 51% of people vote to steer a ship into an iceberg should this be accepted because of democracy? Democracy is a religion, look at Singapore and China and compare them to the West.
remarkEon 6y ago
>they were antidemocratic. And "antidemocratic" gets defined by, well, Twitter.

Trump's recent tweets that were flagged by Twitter weren't disagreements, they were antidemocratic.

googthrowaway42 6y ago

Censoring the elected president is inherently anti democratic.

brown9-2 6y ago
A warning is not censorship.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  That is a depraved level of disingenuousness.
  - brown9-2 6y ago
    So is telling the public that there was massive fraud in all the states you lost and refusing to admit defeat!
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      He didn't allege massive fraud in all the states he lost. There are severe irregularities that have been recorded in many different areas within certain swing states. He has no obligation to admit defeat until the electors vote on the President in mid December. Another morally depraved take.
squidfish 6y ago
There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Trump can say what he wants, but Twitter absolutely has a choice what, if anything, they allow to be published on their platform. FWIW, Trump's time on Twitter is winding down. The only reason he hasn't received the ban-hammer from Twitter is his unique position as an elected official. January 20th shortly after noon, he will no longer exist on Twitter.
- drdec 6y ago
  > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Interesting. Would the right-wing be better off if Twitter were a government-owned entity, thus ensuring that their right to free speech would always allow unfettered access? Would we ever be able to convince them to trust the government enough that that was actually the case? Would they be able to overcome their impulse in favor of privatization over nationalization to allow something like that to happen?
- nostromo 6y ago
  > There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. So, do you support net neutrality? It's the ISP's platform, they can do what they want with it... right?
eertami 6y ago
No it isn't. I'm quite sure you know it isn't. Being _unable_ to censor the president is what would be anti-democratic. Only in authoritarian regimes would a leader be able to force private companies to spread their message. In a democratic country, you have the freedom to choose what you want to support and not support.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposing ideas.

hintymad 6y ago

But what gives Twitter the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong?

dbt00 6y ago
If he doesn't like it Trump can start his own site where he can say whatever he wants. There's no reason Twitter can't moderate his posts however they see fit, and in fact his position as elected official shielded him from most normal consequences of his behavior. Consider how judges around the country have responded to his campaign's legal filings, it's not like Twitter was out on a limb here.
- hintymad 6y ago
  That I totally agree. Twitter is a private company, after all. In the meantime, Twitter is editorializing, and they should not enjoy Section 230.
  - geofft 6y ago
    What's an example in your mind of a case where someone can remove content and retain Section 230 immunity?
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Illegal content, in however the courts have agreed what 'illegal' means. Also spam, to what a reasonable person would consider spam -- and a political opinion isn't spam.
    - afiori 6y ago
      removing is not editorializing. Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet. It is somewhat similar to choosing a title for a article, even if you leave the content unchanged you can significantly change the message or the effect by choosing an appropriate title. In this context twitter is not simply recommending accounts you might like, or refusing to deliver tweets, they are actually engaging with the speech of the user. As an analogy consider someone that retweets and article discussing some crimes. this person post a link and says: "I can't believe Person A is actually a murderer", in this case regardless of the article content the poster is exposed to a potential lawsuit in case Person A can prove its innocence. Twitter is closer to this example that to simply choosing to remove content. (specifically this does not apply to the removed trump tweets)

exolymph 6y ago

"Disagreements" and "antidemocratic" aren't mutually exclusive categories.

wolfram74 6y ago
I don't know that the /worst/ time to start a conversation about ending the practice of voting for office is when you're losing an elected office, but it's pretty bad.

rayiner 6y ago

The story about Hunter Biden wasn’t anti-Democratic. Tabloid fodder, but not anti-Democratic.

pjc50 6y ago
Didn't it just turn out not to be true?
- afiori 6y ago
  No, the story simply had very little evidence and so had no definitive claims, but for now there is no evidence that those email where planted by foreign agents nor that the content of the laptop was falsified (for example while the Biden campaign dismissed the story they never claimed the emails to be false). Moreover a witness that was part of that email thread confirmed the conclusion reached in the original story.
skuhn 6y ago
Twitter didn't block that post for that reason. Also it wasn't on Trump's account, it was the NY Post which is, as you say, a tabloid. As you can see here, he posted about it and there is no warning label: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1317825484495880192 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13178254844958801...
ummonk 6y ago
That was blocked for privacy violations. And Twitter allowed discussion of the story, just not hotlinks to the story itself which was publishing stolen private content.

prossercj 6y ago

Can we not disagree about the value of democracy?

eightysixfour 6y ago
We all live in a society that functions the way it does (for good and bad) because we have some shared foundational beliefs in something like democracy. While I have mixed opinions about digital censorship in general, it should not be surprising for a (quasi)democratic society that values free speech to silence those in power who would encourage large groups to question those core values. This is especially true since western society regularly tries to interpret and judge intent along with what people say, and it has judged that Trump's intent is self-serving and not an honest disagreement, and as a result it has deemed it at least somewhat acceptable to censor him.
dlp211 6y ago
This isn't some philosophy or political science class. We are a Constitutional Republic which is a fancy way of saying that we are a type of democracy. One which the POTUS swore an oath to uphold.
Kephael 6y ago
Why is it inherently good? If we import 50 million poor people what do you think would appeal to them? Why wouldn't large groups just vote themselves access to other people's wealth? If 51% of people vote to steer a ship into an iceberg should this be accepted because of democracy? Democracy is a religion, look at Singapore and China and compare them to the West.

remarkEon 6y ago

>they were antidemocratic. And "antidemocratic" gets defined by, well, Twitter.