7 ms·
Twitter says it 'inadvertently' limited engagements on Trump's flagged tweets
- neogodless 6y agoRelated to previous story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25398576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25398576
- Simulacra 6y agoThis "inadvertently" limiting speech is becoming more of a habit for Twitter, than an accident.
- DangitBobby 6y agoLimiting engagement is not the same thing as limiting speech. One implies, as you've intended, that speech was censored.
- derision 6y agoI would argue they're the same thing. Me "liking" something by clicking a button is speech
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- im3w1l 6y agoQuite often twitter seems to have a pattern of escalations. They remove verification. They "accidentally" take action. And then they ban for real. So it seems like it should be taken as a threat.
- FranzFerdiNaN 6y agoTwitter is completely free to ban anyone they want for any reason they want. Don’t want that? Nationalize it or set rules that social media companies are not allowed to ban anyone no matter what they say.
- bartaxyz 6y agoThe criticism above is a criticism of how Twitter is handling situation, not how the government should handle it. Just because they're free to do so doesn't mean that it can't be criticised.
- joemazerino 6y agoAnd politically targeted.
- egberts1 6y ago“inadvertly” = we goofed on a real overtly design.
- nodesocket 6y agoHow about the fact they also covered up the Hunter Biden federal investigation of his businesses. They blocked the media account of NY Post right before the election.
- gitweb 6y agoHow about Republicans stop holding onto "evidence", which turns out to be manufactured, right before the elections and then expect everyone to take their evidence seriously when even the conservative-stacked courts tell them they are delusional.
- slaymaker1907 6y agoIt's because it was pretty obviously a giant lie due to the complete lack of evidence and just plain didn't make sense to begin with. Why would Hunter Biden fly hours to go get his computer repaired. Even if that was true, there would be serious questions about the chain of custody for this supposed evidence. Many stages for things to be fabricated with big incentive to do so.
- droptablemain 6y agoAt least one person -- strategist Frank Luntz -- verified the contents of one of the emails in the archive. Also, what about the photos? The Bidens also never denied that the laptop evidence was real.
- nobody9999 6y ago>At least one person -- strategist Frank Luntz -- verified the contents of one of the emails in the archive. Absolutely. Especially because Frank Luntz is completely non-partisan and has no interest in helping Biden's opposition[0]: "Frank Ian Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political and communications consultant, pollster and pundit,[1][2] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for the Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He advocated use of vocabulary crafted to produce a desired effect; including use of the term death tax instead of estate tax, and climate change instead of global warming. Luntz has frequently contributed to Fox News as a commentator and analyst, as well as running focus groups during and after presidential debates on CBSN.[3] Luntz describes his specialty as "testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate."[4] He is also an author of business books dealing with communication strategies and public opinion." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
- Barrin92 6y agoIf Donald Trump, the individual, would be treated like an ordinary user he'd probably already been kicked off the platform. The president of the US as an office has public, secure communication channels, Donald Trump, having signed the same TOS like anyone else, should be treated like everyone else. Not exactly sure why Twitter feels the need to be apologetic about how they moderate their platform.
- disown 6y agoIt isn't just Trump who gets special treatment. A lot of crazy people with blue check marks who get special privileges. After all, isn't that the kind of internet you want? Where certain people you agree with have privileges over everyone you disagree with? Also, the president generally gets special privileges on media platforms because he is the president. That's just common sense. Assuming you are american, I can't believe there are people actually advocating for big tech to censor the president. It just sounds insane to me that anyone would support such an idea.
- michaelmcdonald 6y agoThis! So very much, this! He’s not tweeting from the Twitter officially recognized @potus account; he’s doing so from the same account he registered as a regular citizen years ago. This account should receive no special privileges. It’s asinine that Twitter ignores their own rules just to appease this man.
- sova 6y agoHe drives a lot of traffic to their site
- trissylegs 6y agoExaclty, I don't know how many times I've heard mention of Trump's Tweets in the news and elsewhere.
- barnaclejive 6y agoif they cared about being on the right side of history, which apparently they do, if only for a "inadvertently limited" amount of time, they would forget about the traffic. That traffic is from mostly people people better off not being (a part of you engagement)
- coding123 6y ago"inadvertently took action" what the hell does that mean?
- guram11 6y agocensorship
- sova 6y agospider on keybRDAOEUD
- leobabauta 6y agoIt means it wasn’t good for their adverts.
- Dylan16807 6y agoProbably either a robot did it, or they clicked the wrong flag button.
- fareesh 6y agoCoincidence that the people at these companies hate the President with a burning passion and many are caught on tape saying they train their AIs to look for things like guns and God and the crucifix when shadowbanning because "who talks like that?"
- darthrupert 6y agoThere's really no amount of "censorship" that would be too much when it comes to the individual called Donald Trump. The idealism of free speech was invented in a time where village idiots could harass a maximum of perhaps hundred people and convince about 2. Now they can harass millions of people, and convince the same 2%, but now that two percent is a huge amount of people. The amount of damage these village idiots can cause is now a civilization breaking power. Why would we not fight against it?
- DangitBobby 6y agoMagical thinking born in a bygone era.
- JuliusPullo 6y agoVillage idiot here. I will save this pearl of progressive-marxist thought to show to my fellow village idiots how exactly we are seen by the self-appointed, "educated" elite who want us to surrender our rights at their feet.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- darthrupert 6y agoThank you, I thought it was pretty well written as well.