51 ms·
The account of realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours
- philip1209 6y agoThey're also vowing to permanently suspend Trump for future violations: https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178
- colmvp 6y agoNice, it only took 4+ years of violations.
- mattnewton 6y agoOr one lost election.
- colmvp 6y agoYes, you're more accurate. If he won re-election, Twitter would've likely bent the rules around his behavior.
- pvfffghhr 6y agoWhat exactly do they accuse him of? Edit: nobody has an answer? It seems a very important question. Like if you say “spreading fake news”, you are saying Twitter should act as an authority of truth. Since they can’t possibly be that, where does that leave us?
- Technically 6y agoviolating their terms of service, presumably. However, it's a private site & they don't need to justify their giving service or not.
- ricc 6y agoI don’t know why you’re in HN if you can’t use a search engine... but one of his violations is inciting violence.
- bra-ket 6y agothat's not true though, he explicitly said: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469127807005777...
- nindalf 6y agoYou’re arguing in bad faith. It is a fact that that this election is over, and Biden won fair and square. 60 losses in State and Federal courts proves that. And yet Trump continues to incite his supporters by spreading falsehoods - the election was stolen, the other side committed fraud, patriots need to #stopthesteal and so on. Even yesterday he promised never to concede. But sure, selectively look at the text where says “remain peaceful”. What a joke people like you are.
- sneak 6y agoClaiming that false things are true is not inciting violence.
- andy_ppp 6y agoIt can incite violence, would these people have stormed the capital building if he’d said “fair enough guys, Joe got more votes than me, I lost”.
- La1n 6y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-t... ------ >Be There. Will Be Wild! ------ a supporter misspelled the word “cavalry” in tweeting that “The calvary is coming, Mr. President!” Mr. Trump responded: “A great honor!” ------ But first came the remarks of the President, delivered on the Ellipse, just south of the White House. “We will never give up,” he said. “We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s death involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.”
- emteycz 6y agoTwitter is a company providing free service, and they have the right to prevent anyone from using it at their discretion without any explanation whatsoever. Twitter can explain their position but it can be completely wrong, and an explanation definitely does not make them any authority of any kind, and doesn't mean anything about other cases.
- devwastaken 6y agoYou're not legitimately looking for an answer, therefore few are going to spend the time on it. Your questions are answered by honest research and taking the time to argue against yourself before doing it to other people.
- paganel 6y agoThis is very slippery-slopy, the next Trump will know to take definitive actions against corporate entities like Twitter from earlier on.
- mcguire 6y agoWhy do you think they are attacking Section 230?
- colejohnson66 6y agoDoesn’t Section 230 actually protect them? Without it, they’d have no “safe harbor” protections against his account and would be forced to proactively remove stuff and would overmoderate to avoid lawsuits.
- antris 6y agoFascists want to use laws against their detractors whenever possible, but also want none of the law apply to them. The USA could be a dictatorship if Trump were just slightly smarter.
- OniBait 6y agoI think it is more that they see selectively removing content as equivalent to moderation and thus they shouldn't have safe harbor. So maybe they want them to only remove illegal content or something?
- mcguire 6y agoAs OniBait says, I think (I've given up trying to figure out the details of what they're doing) they are using the threat of removing 230 as a stick to stop social media companies from any moderation at all. Withou 230, the user-generated-content business model is untenable.
- int_ 6y agoTrump is no longer profitable for Twitter.
- sandworm101 6y agoReally? He would seem to be the king of all whales. His extremes draw people to the platform. No doubt countless seniors only ever installed the app so that they could follow trump. Like it or not, he draws in new users.
- sangnoir 6y agoHow about legal exposure, or loss of political goodwill (especially by those who are in positions to provide oversight)? Profitability is impacted by more factors than just raw "number of eyeballs"
- andrewfong 6y agoWell, the funny thing is they're mostly protected from legal exposure by Section 230, that thing Trump keeps trying to get rid of.
- asiando 6y agoIn 2017 I saw Twitter advertising in Tokyo’s metro with Trump tweets. Even if their PR said “we don’t like it but it’s in the public interest,” it was obviously in their interest. Twitter has been mentioned daily in the news for the past 5 years, they turned a huge profit thanks the guy. The only reason they’re acting now is that their excuse is about to expire. If they found another good excuse, Trump would stay.
- hef19898 6y agoBack then, it was in everyones interesst. Trump caused controversy, that drove traffic. Same applied for mainstream media and TV, everyone covered im because he drove engangement. The world would be much different, if everybody would just not have covered him and his rallies already in 2016. Everybody did, so.
- drukenemo 6y agoNow it’s OK to be political on Hacker News?
- pvfffghhr 6y agoOnly if you have the right opinions.
- zorpner 6y agoEvery single comment on HN is political to varying degrees. The ones decrying politics are, ironically, among the most political; they specifically seek to perpetuate the status quo.
- seizethecheese 6y agoTautology
- zbentley 6y agoHow?
- arp242 6y agoIt's been OK since forever; there are loads of political discussions, and there have been for as long as I remember.
- dragonwriter 6y agoAnd at the outset, they changed the rules specifically to make his violations not violations (with an exception for leaders motivated by the constant complaints about his incessant violations); it was only toward the end that they restored the idea that there were rules that could apply to Trump (though they were still weaker than the generally applicable rules.)
- arp242 6y agoI think that made sense to be honest; like it or not, Trump is the elected president, and denying the democratically elected president of your country access to your platform is quite the step. I mean, I sure don't like the entire situation as such, but in the same position, I probably would have done something similar.
- vkou 6y agoHe should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Are all men not equal in this country?
- arp242 6y agoAs an elected official you're usually given a bit more breathing space in these kind of issues. This is the case in more or less any similar country.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> This is the case in more or less any similar country. reply That’s true in the sense that Twitter’s rules change specifically motivated by Trump’s violation of their pre-existing rules applied globally, not just in the US, and enabled and was seized on by similarly-oriented leaders elsewhere, as well.
- arp242 6y agoIt's not just about Twitter; in my own country the courts gave our own Trumpian firebrand Geert Wilders more leeway on account of being a democratically elected MP in two separate rulings. Actually, many countries have presidential and/or parliamentary immunity laws, partly so they can say what they think without fear of prosecution. Twitter is just following this long-standing precedent.
- totalZero 6y agoTrump is the best thing that could have happened to Twitter. His content keeps millions of people engaged.
- ketamine__ 6y agoWhy not just do it now? It rings hallow.
- latch 6y agoNot sure if you're genuinely asking because you don't know, but the reason is because they have a policy for this (1). Personally, I find it both compelling and reassuring. (1) https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldlead...
- TT3351 6y agoThey have a public policy written down somewhere, but I'd wager the reasoning is more "we're not going to antagonize individuals who have a direct impact on our bottom line through legislation/prosecution." He lost that card.
- Redoubts 6y ago> 15 October 2019
- kelnos 6y agoA policy that they've been ignoring where Trump is concerned for over 4 years now.
- ketamine__ 6y agoI'm actually not sure if you're genuine or aloof. Talking about one last chance after someone does despicable things is despicable.
- Larrikin 6y agoThis would be the most dangerous time to do it, funnel all his followers on to a hyper radicalized platform like Gab or Parler right after insurrectionists have literally stormed the Capitol and couldn't be stopped even after police shot one of them. The smart move is to bide their time slowly backing him down without angering him until January 20th when he no longer has any power to use any lever of power. A furious Trump issuing a blanket pardon to anyone on Parler after being kicked off twitter could be a real result.
- mehrdadn 6y agoI assume they wouldn't let him just make another account?
- dstick 6y ago@fakeDonaldTrump. Nvm, too easy ;-)
- jachee 6y agoI also wonder if he still has (ever had?) access to the @PotUS account.
- MagnumOpus 6y agoHe still does and always had access to it, but true to character, he wanted to build his own brand and follower base rather than that of the POTUS account which will be closed and archived once he is dethroned.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- newguy1234 6y agoPeople on the right-wing want Trump to move to Parler anyways. We don't want to be supporting "big tech" anymore.
- johnofthesea 6y agoI'm afraid "right-wing" is too ambitious term in this context.
- dan-robertson 6y agoAh yes, the platform that started with “no moderation” but had to add a rule that you can’t reply to someone with a photo of your own faeces
- jonny_eh 6y agoIt sucks to be (soon) not the president.
- fuzzfactor 6y agoHe was fired a month ago and still won't admit it. Plus every decade IIRC a lesser-known populist gets locked up for inciting a riot that never even occurred. What else could be more appropriate.
- fuzzfactor 6y agoI must apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings whether or not they had something more appropriate to contribute. I should have put a question mark at the end of my message. Never was good at grammar to begin with. I don't know if it's the Democrats or Republicans who are less trustworthy from one day to the next. Wouldn't want to buy a used car from any one of 'em. Even worse a new car. Anyway, if Hillary Clinton did something treasonous enough to get locked up it would have happened. For how long who knows, but what would be equal protection under the law for US citizens to be protected from those who would threaten the sanctity of the US Democracy, especially from a position of power when that position is intended to preseve the work of all those who have come before and served without any doubt of their good intentions for all constituents? So I'm very, very sorry. I was completely wrong and I admit it fully. Nobody's fault but mine. He was fired two months ago. . EDIT: almost left off a question mark again.
- tin7in 6y agoI'm curious if this will be possible 10 years from now. A single corporation to be able to censor a president. No matter who that president is or what is she/he saying. What if that corporation is led by someone else with totally different political views or motivation?
- redisman 6y agoOn one platform. He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public
- vipa123 6y agoExactly. Censorship, which is done by the government, prevents speech on all platforms. If a person cannot tweet they can still blog, newsletter, email, and even whisper their truth via their free speech to the next person all they like.
- bena 6y agoI'm going to stop you there. Private companies can censor. Censorship isn't the sole domain of the government. Twitter is censoring the President on its platform. As is their right to do so as Twitter is not the government. At least the last time I checked.
- wussboy 6y agoAnd that's precisely the danger of social media. If he must reach his following through a (relatively) neutral third party (the main-stream media) that third party can choose whether or not to pass that information on. If he always and at all times has unfettered access to a rabid following, there is no moderation, no mediation, and we get our current situation.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoRecently I saw trump on tv at a press conference, the news anchors muted him and spoke over him.
- christiansakai 6y agoGood riddance.
- obilgic 6y agofull thread: https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970430062485505 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970430062485505
- danhak 6y agoThis is not censorship, this is not about the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech !== Entitlement to a Platform And incitement of violence has never been protected speech. This has gone too far.
- lutorm 6y agoExactly. Censorship is done by the government. A private entity can not "censor" anyone, legally. And the idea that the President of the United States is deprived of a platform by this is ludicrous.
- dunce2020 6y agoI also celebrate this return to feudalism.
- whoevercares 6y agoDisagree. I’d rather prefer a practical view —- Big social media tech in internet age have the practical means to perform censorship
- vlovich123 6y agoHow so? Just going from a dictionary definition: > censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Nothing here says it's only censorship if done by the government. Legally in the USA there's a stark distinction between government & non-governmental censorship. Even then sometimes private entities fall under restrictions like in the case of the FCC & public broadcast networks (see Janet Jackson nip slip, the inability to curse during certain TV/radio programs at certain times, etc). Now whether all of this desirable or not is politically debatable & one we should have. That being said under the current legal structure Twitter is probably in the clear. I'm generally more curious how these kinds of actions by tech companies don't violate section 230 though. In the early days of the WWW, that was the reason given for not moderating such speech - "if we start moderating any speech then we're not a safe harbor and we have to moderate all speech". Does this mean that these tech companies that are doing moderation expose themselves legally somehow? Or does it just mean that the previous arguments were done in bad faith? Or were there laws passed to refine section 230 in this regard?
- obilgic 6y agoHow big & immediate (powerful) leaders' reach were 200 years ago? Were they able to send their message to 10s millions of people instantly and lead them to things? or how long would it take them to reach all those people. I wonder if today's leaders have a very different power compared to when most of these laws and systems were put in place?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt was less immediate, but anyone who wanted to respond was similarly constrained, so there wasn't much difference in actual power. The coup against Peter III of Russia is an instructive historical example; Catherine couldn't instantly send her message everywhere, but neither could anyone else, so she just had to visit power centers one by one and convince them that she was in charge.
- owl57 6y agoMention of Russian coups reminded me of the following quite relevant Lenin quote[1] that for some reason was repeated enough times by Soviet media to be easily recognizable by anyone born in the USSR: "Our three main forces—the fleet, the workers, and the army units—must be so combined as to occupy without fail and to hold at any cost: (a) the telephone exchange; (b) the telegraph office; (c) the railway stations; (d) and above all, the bridges." [1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/08.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/08.htm
- DenisM 6y agoIn the 1830 King Charles the 10 of France has issued certain proclamations, but nobody found out out because the printers refused to print them, and instead spent their energy and paper on liberal revolutionary materials. Charles pissed them off a couple days earlier by trying to hoist onerous censorship so they showed him a middle finger. Don’t fuck with people who buy ink by the barrel.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoNobody elected those people though. In a democracy, they shouldn't have that much power.
- dkaplan 6y agoHe deescalated and they don’t want him to suddenly change his mind
- redisman 6y agoI saw the tweets and videos. He was NOT deescalating. Are you kidding me?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoThey took those down and left one up where he finally did deescalate https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1346962544091652096 https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1346962544091652096
- vipa123 6y agoWhat were the tweets and videos?
- Rapzid 6y agoAny idea where we can find the removed tweets, or are you able to summarize?
- rasengan 6y agoThis is blatant censorship of the President of the United States, regardless of anyone's thoughts or opinions about him. Edit: It may be fun to downvote and might make some feel great for a period of time, but it doesn't change the fact that the President of the country of free speech is being censored.
- traes 6y agoBeing the president doesn't mean you can say whatever bullshit you want and incite violence with no consequences.
- o-__-o 6y agoSo no freedom of speech for some us citizens? This reads as a Slippery slope argument
- kingaillas 6y agoWhere's the freedom of speech issue with a private company not carrying messages from any specific person?
- slaman 6y agoSpeech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes is not protected under the first amendment.
- 6y ago
- cwkoss 6y agoCrazy how the police took such a hands-off approach to keeping the riot out of the capitol. I saw a video of police opening up the barricade line so they could come past it. Such a stark contrast to police action during the BLM protests. I wonder what the chain of command was who told these cops to essentially do nothing today. Who does the buck stop with?
- awnird 6y agoThe police are a criminal gang who have been in on the coup from the start.
- sitkack 6y agoIf BLM had done this blood would be flowing in the streets.
- minkzilla 6y agoWell a woman died.
- abraxas 6y agoShe stormed a parliament building in session. She should have fully expected exactly this outcome in any non failed state. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that...
- HideousKojima 6y agoLike when they took over several square blocks of Seattle for a month and declared independence and weren't stopped by the cops until their private police force killed too many black teenagers?
- vkou 6y ago1. The Seattle protests did not storm any buildings, force people out of their workplaces, or planted any bombs. 2. The SPD, for a reason they still can't explain, and against the orders of both Mayor Durkan, and Police Chief Best, chose to leave the East Precinct, and then, in a petty manner, stopped responding to calls in the entire Capitol Hill area. 3. The CHAZ occupied a public park, and the streets of the surrounding block. It did not stop the operation of businesses, legislatures, or government. It did not prevent the police from accessing the area. What we're seeing here, is a failed coup - an attempt to prevent the peaceful, democratic transfer of power by force, at the behest of a politician. I can't believe that you can't tell the difference between a coup, and a protest. One is treason and insurrection, which carries the death penalty, while the other is a constitutionally protected right.
- labster 6y agoI’m sure the tempban will make Trump reflect on his behavior and be a more responsible citizen in the future. Just kidding. Sounds like a good day to invest in Parler.
- pstuart 6y agoI imagine the advertising revenue of Parler might be constrained by advertisers willing to associate with it.
- soared 6y agoStunning. Regardless of political lean, and the inevitable Supreme Court hearing on this action, it is unprecedented that a company has the power to silence a sitting president. Twitter holds the power, but do they not also by definition hold the responsibility of the content on their platform when it costs lives?
- sho_hn 6y agoDidn't any media company in US history have at all times the power not to publish statements by the US President? Why should the US President have command over their printing press/servers? It's not like Twitter has a monopoly, either.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoWhat can the Supreme Court do to force a private company to publish whatever the president wants to say?
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoSame kinda of thing they have done in the past the First Amendment trumps companies rights > ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- DenisM 6y agoWhoa. Thank you so much for this, I had no idea!
- eyelidlessness 6y agoIANAL, but I think there’s a pretty substantial difference between “prevent distribution” and “refuse to publish”. There are some cases in 1A caselaw where mandatory publishing is a thing, but they’re extraordinarily limited and generally public health/safety oriented and proscribed by the state. I’d be shocked if even this court went so far as to mandate a private company devote its resources to providing content that violates its own rules.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoIt's amazing that the reactions to this are both "should have banned him years ago for violating their rules" and "this is blatant dangerous censorship." Whichever side you're on, this is a lose-lose situation for twitter.
- solveit 6y agoBoth sides are correct.
- Tokkemon 6y agoNo, they are not.
- DenisM 6y agoWith power comes responsibility.
- chillacy 6y agoThere is no popular position with moderation, everyone hates the umpire. On the flip side, if everyone hates you equally you're probably on the right track.
- polka_haunts_us 6y agoI dunno, I was friends in college with someone who moderated a subreddit whose head mod was univesally hated to the point where a rival subreddit formed and eventually outpaced the original. I have to say from everything I heard about the guy, and my own rare interactions with him, the hatred of him was 100% justified. Some people are just very shitty and lack any sympathizers.
- edbob 6y ago> On the flip side, if everyone hates you equally you're probably on the right track. This gives pedophiles the moral high ground.
- 6y ago
- davidg109 6y agoKudos Twitter. Ban this shit.
- maest 6y agoA more cynical viewer would see how Twitter's decision to become tougher on Trump's tweets only came after Trump lost the election.
- kingaillas 6y agoHowever, Trump's tweets have become more and more unhinged after he lost the election.
- noxer 6y agoThe deleted tweets could be considered "a lie" or whatever but srsly nothing in there justifies deleting it. He's actively calling for peace, law & order and to let the blue do their job. The problem with censorship is that ###### and that you cant #####. There is also no way to argue why you agree/disagree with it because #######.
- Pfhreak 6y ago> He's actively calling for peace, law & order and to let the blue do their job. What a wild selective (mis)reading of his Twitter account. Did you miss the parts where he said he loved the people who stormed the Capitol with rifles today? Or the part where he said the vice president should just declare him the winner of the election?
- noxer 6y agoLike I said call it a "lie" if he says dumb/not true stuff. He could say Stalin was a great person or whatever who cares. I certainly dont need or want twitter to decide whether that should be read or not. >Did you miss the parts where he said he loved the people who stormed the Capitol with rifles today? He never said that that that's just total nonsense not even misinterpretation that straight made up BS. You could just as well says he said he loves rapists because it happens to be that at least one of the person at the protest was a convicted rapist. If that's how you interpret things from someone you dont like you have a serious problem with reality. Hes speech was to the people who attender the protest not specifically to thous who entered the building which obviously where a minority. And even if he included the people who entered the building he did not encourage them in any way to do anything they should not do, in fact if he includes them he too told them to go home peacefully.
- throw_m239339 6y agoLive by Twitter, die by Twitter. Some people here despise Facebook for privacy concerns, but it's still a useful private network for family and friends not constrained by the message/length format. Twitter generates so much negativity, so much strife between people who constantly yell at each other over nothing that socially it is the most toxic place on the internet. As for public officials using Twitter, a private company for their main communication channel instead of using government websites, they need to stop doing that.
- newguy1234 6y agoGlad I'm not the only one that feels that way about twitter. When I first used it and saw all the hate speech and negative comments I was like "who on earth would even use this platform?" It really reminded me of 4chan.
- esja 6y ago4chan is almost certainly less toxic than Twitter at the societal level. And due to its design (anonymity etc) it may also be less toxic to the average individual participant, in terms of emotional/psychological harm.
- spidersouris 6y ago> As for public officials using Twitter, a private company for their main communication channel instead of using government websites, they need to stop doing that. That's a relevant point and I hope every public official would do this. However, what people seem to miss is that Twitter, just like other social media such as Facebook or Instagram, started to, in people's mind, transform into a public agora and lose their private status. The thing is they gained so much power and became so essential and valuable as far as society and political life are concerned that they're now considered as communication channels where everyone, including public officials, should have the right to express their opinion as long as it doesn't break the TOS, which is something I can, in fact, hardly disapprove.
- nullc 6y ago> Twitter generates so much negativity, so much strife between people who constantly yell at each other over nothing that socially it is the most toxic place on the internet. Beef. It's what's for twitter.
- Redoubts 6y agoWhat were the three tweets?
- DenisM 6y agoHere’s one: These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever! https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/user/realDonaldTrump https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/user/realDonaldTr...
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI think I get the logic. "Go home" is de-escalating, but "sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long" is repeating the same claim that's stoking the madness, and repeating it in very incendiary terms. Yeah, it might be reasonable to ban that.
- throwawaybchr 6y agoThe order is important. Despite outrageous A, de-escalate and do B. Had it been the other way around I would agree with you.
- conistonwater 6y agoThere is no "despite" in that tweet.
- throwawaybchr 6y agoIsn't it implicit? "We scored a goal, the umpire didn't see it and they stole our championship away from us. This is a disgrace. Go home in peace"
- chadash 6y agoIt’s quite ironic that people think this is a first amendment or censorship issue when the real first amendment issue would be if Twitter were not allowed to do this.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI find the most interesting thing to be the conflation of censorship and government censorship by people who are not aware of the non-government kind.
- gamblor956 6y agoThe term "censorship" has always meant governmental restriction on speech, dating back to Roman times. "Censorship" by a private party is a modern extension of the meaning of the term and it is not universally accepted.
- paganel 6y agoCorrect, but the spirit of the law says that it should be universally accepted. Otherwise we'll all end up like in Orban's Hungary, with almost all the media technically in private hands but practically speaking in Orban's pockets (if I'm not mistaken a similar thing is now happening in Poland).
- emilsedgh 6y agoThe media is oddly, oddly quit regarding Julian Assange's case. I cannot help but think it's orchestrated.
- gamblor956 6y agoNearly every media institution has reported on every development of the Assange case as it happened, including this past week, when they all covered the latest outcome in the case. And there has been no further news, so the news media moved on to other news, like the siege of the U.S. Capitol building.
- admiralspoo 6y agoTwitter seems to want to ingratiate itself with the incoming administration and government. Shortsighted.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bmmayer1 6y agoThis was the right move by Twitter at the right time. If they had blocked his account years, or even months ago, they would have had maintained no credibility as a platform, in the pocket of the left, etc. If they don't take a stand now, they're all but complicit in perpetuating this [riot? attempted coup? insurrection?] That said, people should be careful what they wish for: we don't want a couple of powerful media platforms deciding which speech is considered permissible and which isn't. They have to be very conservative in their approach or these platforms will cease to carry any authority.
- majormajor 6y agoDo we want Twitter (or Facebook, or whatever) to "carry any authority"? Nobody in US politics has benefited more from Twitter and Facebook than Trump himself. Anything that makes us stop relying on those as sources of fact or reasoned political discussion sounds like it has a high chance of being a good thing to me.
- onionisafruit 6y agoPresumably twitter wants to carry some authority no matter what we want. What they did is in service if their own goals.
- riffic 6y agorequire interconnection/adversarial interoperability then as a condition of that authority.
- pas 6y agoRequire by who? How? Why? That authority is given by users basically. And users don't really care about media health.
- lmm 6y agoTwitter gets a lot of their value from all sorts of official accounts, many of which are government agencies. E.g. the last time I applied for a passport, Twitter was the only support channel available (they had a "live chat" page on their website as well, but it was broken). That's not right - what if I'd been subject to one of Twitter's arbitrary bans?
- oblio 6y agoI found it funny that the account that copied his tweets verbatim was banned after only 12 hours (I think). So just based off of their rules, he should have been banned for good a long time ago.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoYou're assuming they're applying their rules consistently and not completely arbitratily.
- oblio 6y agoThe arbitrariness was my point.
- InTheArena 6y agoFacebook, Twitter,Reddit and the classic media where the key enabling factor to Trump. They reward the most brash, most outspoken statements - which quickly became the most hateful and partisan. They need to do a lot more then this. (And that cuts both ways, daily there is anti-religious hatred on reddit's front page, or covid quacks on twitter). Falsehoods get more clicks then the truth, and they have been ridding that.
- MrKristopher 6y agoI recently noticed that about reddit. I thought it was just a time wasting site with a political bias. But actually it is a site for spreading false information. Maybe it doesn't get called out often because it's a bit smaller than FB. But for its 50M+ DAU, I presume that false information must be harmful.
- ve55 6y agoI always thought it was obvious they were going to ban him after his time in office was up, it's hard to imagine anything else happening with how they feel about each other.
- legerdemain 6y agoThis is unconscionable and monstrous for Twitter. If the President wanted to call for peace -- now he cannot. If the President wanted to send a message of humility and introspection -- he is unable to. If the President wanted to bring us together during these trying times -- we have shut the door. His last message was a message of love, and some of us were too blind to see it for what it truly is.
- Upvoter33 6y agorussian bot: detected
- nemothekid 6y agoAnd if the President wanted to escalate? Like he has been doing for 2 months now? Also, he's currently the president of the united states. Was the president of the united states completely unable to communicate with the country before twitter?
- dlp211 6y agoThe President had a chance to do that. He didn't, he won't. Trump is who he is and thinking that he will be someone else is a lesson in futility.
- dmamills 6y agoI'm fairly certain the President of the United States has a few more avenues available to reach his citizens than Twitter. It's unfortunate that it may require more effort than just his thumbs, but I'm certain the title he holds at times calls for a bit more.
- c0nducktr 6y agoIf the President wanted to do any of those things, he can use the @POTUS account.
- another_sock 6y agoIt's so amazingly funny how HN isn't smart enough to figure out how things are trending.
- tenebrisalietum 6y agoI think a lot of posts on HN are purposefully contradictory or otherwise "not getting it" simply to generate discussion and make sure many sides of a topic are discussed.
- another_sock 6y agoI think a lot of posts on HN are by people not particularly capable of critical thought.
- temptemptemp111 6y agoRight they never figured anything out - just made it seem like it by memorizing the popular views.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ALittleLight 6y agoWhatever one thinks of Trump, it seems quite stupid of him to put so much of ability to communicate with his followers in the hands of a company that obviously disagreed with him. If I were President Trump I would've ordered the creation of an official US government Social Media site and used that. Alternatively, I would've used Mastodon.
- Twixes 6y agoHis ego prevents that. He relishes in the number of followers/likes/retweets and would have far fewer of these on a website of his own site, so he sticks with Twitter.
- minkzilla 6y agoHear me out on this because the first sentence sounds crazy but I’m not condoning what these people did. What came to mind when I read this news about Capitol Hill was the famous MLK quote “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Along with the thought that these a mostly middle class white people no doubt. Which are overall a privileged group. So I got to thinking about what it means to be heard in today’s world. I think that for a lot of conservatives in a digital world it can feel like their voice or the voice of people with their beliefs aren’t heard. Certainly you can find little echo chambers of conservatism, but when you go to the big news sites, the front page of Reddit, or Twitter it sure looks like everyone leans left. Couple this with the leader of your movement getting little notes on all his tweets to at what he says isn’t true or getting removed. I can see how it feels like your worldview is getting silenced, hence a riot. So I wonder if these movements by Twitter are ultimately counter productive. Just a half baked idea, but some food for thought.
- dionian 6y agoCensoring speech is just going to alienate a huge section of the country rather than provide transparency and a common dialogue We aren't - well, I used to say we weren't - like Communist China, because our ideas could compete in a marketplace of ideas and win out on their merits. Sadly, strong political rhetoric is causing our own media companies to self-censor and in non-transparent ways.
- Spellman 6y agoThey certainly feel like a disparaged minority that is perpetually disparaged and attacked. The only problem is that in general most people... aren't attacking them. This persecution complex is almost completely manufactured. Best example? The War on Christmas. Almost completely fabricated on the evidence. But people feel like they are being pushed to the margins, and there are several leaders fanning these feelings. And that's not to say there aren't real issues. The middle class is shrinking! Whites are not the majority, just a plurality. The manufacturing world is gutted. The opioid crisis has reversed the upward trend of life expectancy! But then what do they blame? Feminists. Liberals. Immigrants. Not the actual problems. And being marginalized has more to do with as a bloc them removing themselves from a shared worldview and facts and increasingly becoming more and more unhinged by conspiracy theory thinking.
- Sophistifunk 6y agoThe commons must not be in private hands, or this is what we get. I'm not interested in the red-v-blue argument disguised as "this is (not) censorship", nobody's fooled.
- LatteLazy 6y agoPropublica keep a record of tweets trump has deleted. I assume these are the ones? https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/user/realDonaldTrump https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/user/realDonaldTr...
- leptoniscool 6y agoToo little too late? The tweets has already led to action
- throwaway829 6y agoBLM protests resulted in millions of dollars in damages and deaths. Who should we ban for enflaming those protestors?
- s3th 6y agoThe police officers responsible for the murders of countless innocent Black people.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoYou're implying that destroying innocent people's property and starting riots that lead to deaths, including 18 murders in Chicago alone on May 31st, is a justified response to an act of injustice, which is an absolutely irresponsible moral outlook, exhibiting morally elitist entitlement. In fact, it would be the 'incitement to riot' that the parent comment is referring to, that an impartial application of the proposed rule would identify as worthy of banning.
- sosborn 6y agoOne act of injustice, or centuries of injustice?
- CryptoPunk 6y agoAt what point does brutalizing innocent people become a justified response to injustice? The answer is at no point. Any way, from what I recall 350,000 white men died fighting for the Union, in a civil war to end an institution that had existed since the beginning of human culture, and that continued to be practiced all around the world into the 20th century until imperialist powers ended it.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoFor anyone who is happy about this, imagine if it was done to the politician you support. "But but but my favorite politician is not an orange racist fascist Nazi piece of shit", you'll probably say, but that doesn't matter. Imagine him being silenced anyway, because "Freedom of Speech !== Entitlement to a Platform", and the platform owners might suddenly decide that it is in their political interest to silence their political opponents. Would you still honestly think that it is perfectly fine?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt absolutely does matter. It's crazy to draw an equivalence between other bad things politicians do and sending goons to take over the legislature. When you attempt a coup, you don't get to claim a right to neutral treatment by media platforms.
- ogre_codes 6y ago> For anyone who is happy about this, imagine if it was done to the politician you support. I'm not overly concerned since politician I support don't encourage their supporters to attack democratic institutions.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoYou missed the point where I was asking you to imagine a situation where he is silenced anyway. For defending democratic institutions, for example. This happens to russian opposition rather frequently, and on privately owned platforms.
- majormajor 6y agoIt's important to fight the Trumps and would-be-Trumps of the US now before they can gather enough power to take us further down that road. Trump being held to the same rules as everyone else[0] by a private party despite being a politician is basically the OPPOSITE of the government having so much power that even private parties will silence people the government doesn't like. So yes, I think it's VITALLY important to protect the rights of private Americans to NOT have to be mouthpieces for the government if they disagree. [0] well, actually, he's still getting some kid gloves, but it's an improvement
- Aeolun 6y agoMaybe we should lock the owner up for 12 hours instead?
- 99_00 6y agoWhat did he say? The two most recent visible tweets are: Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4h I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4h Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!
- mikeyouse 6y agohttps://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22these+are+things+and+events%22 https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22these+are+thin... > "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
- OJFord 6y agoI'm not sure how I feel about actually deleting tweets. They were said, I didn't see them prior to deletion, and now as a disinterested party I don't have the opportunity to see them and perhaps view Trump in a worse light on account of the things he said that were so appalling they had to be deleted. I say 'not sure' because in the case of personal attacks, for example, obviously there's an extra dimension that it's not very nice for the attacked to see it/know that it's there. But I don't really like a nanny ~state~ private company telling me I can't have a chuckle at some nonsense that I know isn't going to incite me to do anything, or whatever. It is Twitter's Twitter to do with what it pleases though.
- tomcam 6y agoWhat a great idea. Of course you should do this! What could go wrong? Now remember that someday the tables will turn. Someday the bad orange man‘s side will have control of the media, and I expect you to support when they suppress the other side’s speech just as it was done to them today. Because we all know freedom of speech is good except when the other side has it.
- pyrrhotech 6y agohave you read his tweets? this has nothing to do with free speech. You are free to post as much conservative philosophy on twitter as you want, but you can't post blatantly treasonous and violence-inciting falsehoods. Twitter allows the accounts of 99% of republicans to go completely uncensored. This is not about censoring the right, it's about protecting our republic and way of life from a violent demagogue. We don't want another Mussolini on our hands. For the record, I lean conservative/libertarian on most issues
- tomcam 6y agoI see no evidence of treason and violence incitement by the president, but the great news is we have a court system that can deal with these things. I assume you want all incitement of violence by all Twitter accounts to result in the same kind of censorship, correct? > Twitter allows the accounts of 99% of republicans to go completely uncensored. Well that’s damn good of them.
- pyrrhotech 6y agoDid you watch the video that was deleted? IMO it is treasonous to blatantly put forth completely baseless election conspiracy theories in order to undermine our democracy. Trump directly encouraged the insurrection today to "Stop the Steal", in other words, to start a coup to forcefully end our democracy and instate himself as our autocrat. This is blatant treasonous behavior
- garbagetime 6y agoTrump's side and Twitter's side are both very far from what I see as moral. I'm not waiting until the tables turn from bad to worse to be horrified. I'm horrified now. Sure, I'd be horrified even if people I generally agreed with were the ones censoring. It's might-is-right level stuff. Twitter's censorship is just one aspect of the issue. Talented philosophers, scientists, etc. are being excluded from mainstream society (forced out of their education, employment, etc.) for having the wrong opinions. Many of the smartest people I know exist almost entirely outside of established institutions. Not a good situation. Very sad that people have so much respect for those in power.
- im3w1l 6y agoTrump tells protestors to go home, tweet is removed and he gets locked..? Wtf is going on here? Is twitter trying to further escalate the situation? Tweet in question was: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850... Not just me claiming this, many people in the hn megathread saw it too and mentioned it too. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25663164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25663164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662781
- re 6y agoThis is a transcript of his video message which you linked that was removed by Twitter. I'll hold off on commentary/speculation of why it would have been removed. > I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. > It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. > We have to have peace, so go home. We love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace.
- im3w1l 6y agoThanks for posting a transcript. That's similar to what I remember, but still do you have a source for other people?
- wsinks 6y agoPBS played the video live. I can't find their copy of the video, but here's their report about it: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/pro-trump-mob-breaches-u-s-capitol/trump-tells-very-special-protesters-to-go-home https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/pro-trump-mob-breac...
- marcodiego 6y agoHalf of Brazil is excited and the other half is scared. Bolsonaro is very very similar to Trump and has made many comments about the security of elections. There is a probability the same will happen here in 2022.
- zeeZ 6y agoIf Trump is unable to tweet, does this trigger the 25th amendment?
- inerte 6y agoToo little, too late. In their quest for engagement these platforms have reformed our society, community, and democracy. It's time for regulation.
- goldforever 6y agoNo problem. He will still be President, for a second term, at the end of all this...lol
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 6y agoThey sure did give him the chance and he posted a video that did not at all de-escalate.
- blobbers 6y agoTwitter has just made the most aggressive move they can against 70M americans who voted for this person 2 months ago. Furthermore, they didn't give the sitting POTUS a chance to de-escalate the situation. If his tweets are causing problems, then send them to a moderator queue and have a discussion with him about what he is saying, don't slap duct tape over his mouth. Provide a contact method for him to discuss the tweets with whoever is making the decision to silence him.
- sjg007 6y agoWhatever, those 70M people can download Parler if they want. POTUS released a video telling people to go home wrapped in a pig blanket of lies.
- blobbers 6y agoTIL about Parler.
- runjake 6y agoIt sounds like you are new to the situation. Twitter has been working with him and his people for months to cut down his rhetoric. For months his tweets have been flagged by Twitter. He has even been suspended for short durations. In short, Twitter has already taken these steps. Those didn’t work and now here we are.
- mrtksn 6y agoIt's not fair to portray this as if a corporation removed someones means of communications. The POTUS will be able to appear on any mass media, the only difference is that the media that he will appear likely will be moderated. When he says something, there would be a few people commenting on it and analysing it. This someone could be someone from CNN/FOX/Breitbart etc, so anyone can choose their own moderator that they trust. This is essentially removing the unchecked propaganda channel of a politician that is causing real life problems.
- pvaldes 6y ago> Twitter has just made the most aggressive move they can against 70M americans who voted for this person 2 months ago. I wouldn't say "against". Rehab will be hard, but the life and health of those 70M Americans will improve by this move. Those poor people were basically suffering from a chronic poisoning of chortisol for 4 whole years of non-stop artificial outrage
- sjg007 6y agoSeems like Jack Dorsey has been playing 5D chess.
- majormajor 6y agoIn America, even the president of the country has to follow rules to participate in certain private services. If this was the country our textbooks say it is, this would be celebrated as an example of how egalitarian the country is. There are a lot of countries where this wouldn't be possible, and Americans should be glad we aren't at that point (yet, at least).
- throwawaybchr 6y agoThe rules are subjective so they are more like whims really. The President put out a video asking people, in plain language, to go home and co-operate with Capitol police. In this same video he reaffirmed his contention that the election was fraudulent, and said that the protesters were loved. Whether he did this sincerely or as a ploy to increase the likelihood of being obeyed, nobody can say without mind reading powers. One camp will say this video can be interpreted as harmful because it contains the claim that the election was fraudulent Another camp will say you are allowed to hold the position that the election was fraudulent and at the same time condemn violence. Twitter has chosen to interpret the video to say that there is a risk of violence despite a plain spoken appeal against violence. They are essentially interpreting the meaning of the message in a way that is contrary to the plain language used in the video. In such a scenario I would probably not treat it as a rule, since this kind of rule can be made up spontaneously and can be used to stop anyone from saying anything really. I think it should not be celebrated when a corporation decides to enforce arbitrary rules based on its own interpretations of someone else's plain words.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scsilver 6y agoA corporation should be able to protect itself from being a platform to promote negative externalities.
- throwawaybchr 6y agoIn India recently, a TV commercial depicted an inter faith marriage. This enraged some hindu groups and the ad got pulled because there was a vocal online outcry, calls for boycotts, doxxing, etc. The corporation protected itself from the negative externality. I'm all for it, but I recognise what is also happening as a result. While in the above case it's the corporation pulling its own ad, and in the Facebook case they're a platform, the end result is the same. Some activist group tells the advertiser not to advertise because their ad equates them to X and X is bad, here are a bajillion deeply offended people. At Facebook you have employees colluding with activist groups giving them tips on how best they can "effect change" on Facebook policy. Which advertisers to target, which controversies to use in their activism. It's all to bring about the desired political outcome of some radicals - limit the reach of my political enemy or their strongest arguments. In the USA the religious group doing the activism is not Christianity anymore - back in the 70s and 80s the Christian lobby had the same degree of influence over TV show content. Today there is a secular belief system occupying that same position, with the opposing political party at the helm, much like the religious right of a few decades ago.
- threesmegiste 6y agoMany people here seems happy for these news. From now on never talk about censorship. Your position on this situation will give you right to talk about censor. America is ruled by tech giants. Forget trump. You will be the first country that will be governed by companies.
- Triv888 6y agoThis twitter "bug" is still around: https://i.imgur.com/3YJrvhc.png https://i.imgur.com/3YJrvhc.png
- chroem- 6y agoThis will be an extremely unpopular comment and will probably be the end of my ability to post on HN, but it needs to be said: What we saw today was precipitated by mass deplatforming and censorship. When you take away the ability of people to participate in peaceful political discourse, you push them towards violence. Half of the American electorate currently feels profoundly unheard. They've lost their public voice and their ability to vouch for themselves, which has enabled mass media to flood every publication channel with parodies of them. The longer this continues, the greater the risk of violence will become. You can't make people's beliefs go away by silencing them.
- mrtksn 6y agoHow it could be that half of the population is deplatformed and censored when the most popular media(Fox) in that country caters for that demographic, had elected a president and the president was in power for 4 full years when the events happened, the events were organised by the said president? What else these people demand? Not being called out for their behaviour? What kind of platform they are looking for? What exactly could be changed to de-victimise those people?
- chroem- 6y agoPeople being relegated to digital ghettos (Parler) is not a sign of healthy discourse. This is about individuals not feeling like they can speak publicly.
- mrtksn 6y agoSure but how is this the other half’s fault? Are the other people obligated to accept lies and bigotry? What’s the plan here? Maybe the people who are into alternative facts should not annoy people who are into facts?
- newguy1234 6y agoYou have to discuss with them diplomatically instead of say "haha, dumb trumper" or something similar. There are left-wing trolls that basically do that lol and the right-wing people just leave to go to the alt-right websites instead. Why do you think there are so many of these right-wing "talk shows" on places like youtube?
- imgabe 6y agoTwitter and Facebook are executing a Man-in-the-Middle attack between the government and the citizens and people are cheering them on. This is ridiculous.
- throw_m239339 6y agoThe government should use their own website + RSS to communicate with its citizens, not some private social media. It should promote open standards (activepub,RSS...) not a private corporation.
- imgabe 6y agoThe government needs to be able to communicate with people where they are. 99% of the population has no idea what RSS or activitypub are or how to use them. People have a right to hear, without a filter exactly what their elected officials are saying. It is necessary for a functioning democracy. If we are only allowed to hear things that Twitter and Facebook deem acceptable, then Facebook and Twitter are effectively governing the country, not the people.
- turndown 6y agoThe idea that Twitter or Facebook are forced to be the propoagators of anyone's speech is false. Instead, all users are subject to the same EULA and TOS, and likewise, are judged in terms of the content they post, not their political leanings. If you owned a website that allowed public postings, would you ever consider yourself obligated to protect a member of the government's speech in a way you do not for a normal user? Also, you can hardly call it a MITM attack when they are specifically announcing their policy. Your usage of that term implies an underhanded policy designed to hide their intentions and actions. This is clearly not the case.
- imgabe 6y agoExcuse me if I think it's a little more important that the public is informed about what elected officials are saying than it is to respect Twitter and Facebook's EULA and TOS where they say they can sell my firstborn to the highest bidder if it helps meet their quarterly numbers. If the President of the United States is saying something, it is my right and duty to hear exactly what that is, verbatim, so I can appropriately participate in our democracy. It is not at all acceptable for Twitter, Facebook, or any other third party to intercede and decide for me that what they said was good or bad. That is my decision to make. The fact that so many people here are willing and eager to cede that authority to faceless, unaccountable corporations is frankly appalling. >If you owned a website that allowed public postings, would you ever consider yourself obligated to protect a member of the government's speech in a way you do not for a normal user? That's an excellent point. This freedom of speech should indeed extend to everyone, not just government officials.
- acconrad 6y agoI just deleted my Twitter account. I'm done supporting social media that co-opt giving him a platform.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- eagsalazar2 6y agoCensors? I thought no politics? This thread is terrible. People who want this conversation should go to facebook or the comment section of fox news.
- sunkenvicar 6y agoDemocracy was usurped by social media giants who control our thoughts and opinions. For 4 years Donald Trump whined about it and did nothing. He could have spiked this mess by removing “publisher” protections. Perhaps he’s gone soft in his old age.
- gnicholas 6y agoI wonder which alt platform is going to win the lottery when Trump moves over to their platform.
- newguy1234 6y agoparler most likely
- morelisp 6y agoFour people are dead and their blood is on the hands of everyone who promoted or allowed these conspiracy theories to spread for the past four years under the guise of civil discourse. This includes every single Hacker News moderator.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- baby 6y agoI read it was one, but you are right four people died tonight. What a shame...
- dang 6y agoPlease stop posting like this—it's obviously against the site guidelines. Deploying horrific rhetoric against "every single Hacker News moderator" doesn't change that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you posted this four times. Doing that kind of thing will get you banned here. Also, it looks you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and we ban accounts that do that, irrespective of what your ideology is. If you'd please review the rules and use HN in the intended spirit, we'd appreciate it. This is a site for curiosity. People can't both be curious and battling enemies at the same time. The nervous system doesn't work that way.
- morelisp 6y agoYou really are gonna ride this death cult all the way to the end huh? God forbid there be IDEOLOGY on your precious capitalist hellsite!
- dang 6y agoThe issue isn't ideology per se, but rather the universal flamewar that ideological battle leads to. Hell is relative and that hell is far worse than this one.
- paganel 6y ago"Democracy" at work. Had this happened in 2011-2012 in some forsaken Middle-East country all the mainstream media would have cried "wolf". Also, I cannot understand brandishing those people that entered the Capitol as "terrorists", again this coming from the mainstream media. I think the exact same speech was made by the Chinese communist media in regards to the Hong Kong protesters who had occupied the territory's legislative chamber.
- jmfldn 6y agoAs many have said, far too little too late. It's easy to do now he's on his way out out. Still had four years of milking the cash cow beforehand. At least we know where Twitter stands now, unless you are literally involved in an actual insurrection against your own government, you won't get banned as a US president. Twitter is a toxic force in society on balance. I'm glad I quit.
- throwaway4good 6y agoBig omnibus social media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) is about to split by political lines. Driven by divise events like this; a group of popular figures and their followers will leave omnibus social media in favour of platforms aligned with their political views. For example: Right-wingers leave Twitter for Parler, Youtube for Bitchute. Ultimately social media will be a bit like newspapers; each outlet with their own particular affiliation and no single dominant outlet.
- nullc 6y agoThe violating content they removed was trump repeating the same stolen election crud he's been saying for a month and then __urging the protesters to go home peacefully, preserve law and order, etc__. Here is a copy: https://files.catbox.moe/71gfr1.mp4 https://files.catbox.moe/71gfr1.mp4 For those that don't want to play a video this is an unabridged transcript: "I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election and everyone knows it especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time, there has never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you, you're very special, you've seen what happens you've seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace." I was watching a live stream from the mob and the protesters (the buffalo costume guy, in fact) were trying to get other protesters to leave on the basis of trumps message and people were believing the claim was fake because twitter restricted sharing so the only way to see it was to directly go to the page. Seems like an odd choice.
- hutzlibu 6y agoIt also seems odd, that they were unable to protect the capitol. It was not a storm out of nowhere. A bit orchestrated? To show the less radical Trump supporters, this is what your president is responsible for, chaos and anarchy in the capitol. Disturbing the democratic process. But I guess, don't assume evil, what can be explained with incompetence.
- shibeouya 6y agoAmd Twitter will be slammed in a bipartisan effort because everyone hates them equally, left and right. Can't say I'll feel sorry when section 230 gets absolutely destroyed under Biden - these companies more than earned it.
- tsegratis 6y agoIf we don't seek truth We get divisive arguments with no solution Is that what we're seeing here? -- The fallout of society, media and leaders included, not valuing truth above personal gain
- swarnie_ 6y agoCan i get some feedback from an American on the current issues? Historically America have incited and armed mobs to overthrow democratically elected governments in South America. Why is it unacceptable this time around?
- rosmax_1337 6y agoI hate twitter.
- ianai 6y agoSociety would be better off if trump were treated like the extreme but fringe and discountable voice he is. The US has had a president elect since November, but most of the headlines are still circling trump. Most lame ducks quickly get put into the second or third tier of coverage after the election results. After inauguration, the media had better never mention trump outside of the “special interest” section of their coverage.
- kace91 6y agoExtreme and unaccountable sure, but fringe and discountable... about 90 million followers on twitter alone aren't exactly that. I do agree that the media needs to stop feeding the troll, however.
- ianai 6y agoThat was no terrorist act backed by 90 million. Other more popular “movements” routinely get many more supporters to show up.
- m-i-l 6y agoInstead of debating whether social media platforms should or shouldn't have silenced the president, and what their role was in inciting the crowds to "insurrection", shouldn't we be discussing instead how to completely remove them from the political sphere? Never before in human history have we had privately operated for-profit organisations with so much power and influence over the running of countries. Social media platforms should never have been allowed to become the arbiters of democracy.
- kace91 6y agoThere are no ways to separate political from non political discourse. You can only remove social media from the political sphere by removing social media, period. You could, however, try to develop a legal and moral framework for acceptable social media behavior (meaning the way the network itself works, not users' behavior). The particularities that make extreme content rise to the top should be banned/discouraged, rather than embraced in the race for engagement.
- syshum 6y agoThere are ways to limit the influence, such has prohibiting elected officials from maintaining "official" accounts where they announce and do the public's business on the social media platforms. Also making some of the support the social media platform clearly have for some candidates as "in kind" political contributions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jojobas 6y ago>removing social media, period This is even better, how do we do that instead?
- hourislate 6y agoThe world would be a better place if FB and Twitter did not exist. People often ask when and where did it go wrong, well it went wrong when Twitter and FB came into existence. They both cause more problems than they solve.
- codecamper 6y agoI was kicked off of Twitter for saying that we should let these Trump white trash fools starve. I also said a hundred positive things to many other people.
- codecamper 6y agoIMO Big tech will be controlled more & more now. There are images of rioters in the Capitol building with their phones out recording the whole thing.
- known 6y agoTrump turned America into Africa :(
- myndpage 6y agoHe turned a country into a continent? What does that even mean?
- AzzieElbab 6y agoReplace with ministry of truth?
- neycoda 6y agoLesser accounts get banned for less than Trump has said there.
- mjgs 6y agoWhat’s the point in trying to even have a discussion about this if there is nowhere to read the actual tweets he posted?
- jimmar 6y agoTrump has been a gift for Twitter as far as platform usage goes. In a sense, banning him is biting that hand that feeds it. They can say that they're really upset with Trump, but as a for-profit company, the sad reality is that they need people like him.
- julienreszka 6y agoTwitter was a mistake.
- disease 6y agoThe real story, to me at least, is the rampant, completely unfounded and roundly debunked claims of election fraud making there way here in this thread in Hacker News. The ability of people to completely fabricate their own reality in order to confirm their own biases and reinforce their prejudices is absolutely astounding.
- AzzieElbab 6y agoPathetic actually. The guy has nuclear football but apparently Twitter account is too dangerous
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoIt's just goddamn embarrassing that they won't block him.