5 ms·
Yes, you're more accurate. If he won re-election, Twitter would've likely bent the rules around his behavior.
by colmvp 6y ago
Yes, 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.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mattnewton 6y agoYou’ll notice that tweet was _not_ taken down, but tweets that told the protestors they were special people and something needed to be done about the stolen election were taken down.
- 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.