4 ms·

This doesn’t make sense to me. Is Twitter or Facebook basically a fundamental human right in the US? Is losing Twitter like losing your ability to own a firearm

This doesn’t make sense to me. Is Twitter or Facebook basically a fundamental human right in the US? Is losing Twitter like losing your ability to own a firearm? The whole “censorship” label seems quite entitled at best. These are private companies. They are under no obligation to let someone’s crazy uncle talk about hanging the VP of the US or overthrowing Congress. Donald J Trump has every opportunity to call into Lou Dobbs, Judge Jeanine, Sean Hannity, or Fox News. He can publish directly on Brietbart. He also has the podium in the WH press room, which he doesn’t like to use, and for a decent chunk of the Presidency, had no daily press briefing. The American liberals cry over the smallest thing, and the conservatives are equally, or perhaps worse entitled cry babies. Twitter owes American individuals absolutely nothing. They’re a business. Presumably they don’t want to get sued because we already knew people were using Twitter to plan another attack on American elected officials and Twitter did nothing.

abernard1 6y ago
His argument wasn't a legal one, it's a practical one. The majority of Republicans believe that their votes were stolen at the ballot box. They then got on their soap box to try to peacefully protest this outcome, which is legal, and what politics is about. They were cancelled and shut down at every avenue trying to exercise speech and protest. It doesn't matter that it's the legal right of Twitter to do this, it's that it is an extraordinarily demotivating action. When people try the ballot box, and then the soap box, they've got one box left. Alienating and dehumanizing people is not an effective recipe for civil peace, even if it's a legal one.
- dang 6y ago
  Please stop using HN for political battle. I had to go back almost three weeks to find a post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390. When accounts start using HN for political flamewar, we ban them, regardless of which politics they're battling for. It's not what HN is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - abernard1 6y ago
    I'm not. It's just that it happens that something relatively significant regarding politics and technology happened lately, and it's top of mind for my commenting. I was "deplatformed"--aka fired--from my tech job a couple months ago for political views. This is not a neutral issue. Thankfully I can retire, but not all people are so lucky. What's sad is that after 24 years of coding day and night, this issue so significant I refuse to continue to work in the tech industry. I love technology, but we're at the point where this industry isn't about technology any longer.
ttt0 6y ago
It's not, but in my opinion it should be. Just like in the EU for example, I believe the banks are legally required to provide you a basic bank account, regardless of what your politics are. But ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case. It's politics. To follow Twitter's own line of reasoning: does it make any sense to you to ban a president on the basis that he might say something that might cause violence, and at the same time don't take into consideration what the act of banning itself might cause?

abernard1 6y ago

His argument wasn't a legal one, it's a practical one. The majority of Republicans believe that their votes were stolen at the ballot box. They then got on their soap box to try to peacefully protest this outcome, which is legal, and what politics is about. They were cancelled and shut down at every avenue trying to exercise speech and protest. It doesn't matter that it's the legal right of Twitter to do this, it's that it is an extraordinarily demotivating action. When people try the ballot box, and then the soap box, they've got one box left. Alienating and dehumanizing people is not an effective recipe for civil peace, even if it's a legal one.

dang 6y ago
Please stop using HN for political battle. I had to go back almost three weeks to find a post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390. When accounts start using HN for political flamewar, we ban them, regardless of which politics they're battling for. It's not what HN is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- abernard1 6y ago
  I'm not. It's just that it happens that something relatively significant regarding politics and technology happened lately, and it's top of mind for my commenting. I was "deplatformed"--aka fired--from my tech job a couple months ago for political views. This is not a neutral issue. Thankfully I can retire, but not all people are so lucky. What's sad is that after 24 years of coding day and night, this issue so significant I refuse to continue to work in the tech industry. I love technology, but we're at the point where this industry isn't about technology any longer.

ttt0 6y ago

It's not, but in my opinion it should be. Just like in the EU for example, I believe the banks are legally required to provide you a basic bank account, regardless of what your politics are. But ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case. It's politics. To follow Twitter's own line of reasoning: does it make any sense to you to ban a president on the basis that he might say something that might cause violence, and at the same time don't take into consideration what the act of banning itself might cause?