5 ms·

So it is ok because it's about Trump?

happytoexplain 6y ago
The parent said it would be worse if the author were somebody with power or fame - not if the target wasn't. Edit: Just clarifying, not agreeing. While I agree that there is subjectivity around how indirect a threat is, who the author and their audience is, etc, I do think in this case this tweet should be removed.
- aksss 6y ago
  There is this kernel of my soul that dislikes how things are worse when they happen to politicians than when they happen to fellow citizens, or to political buildings rather than family-owned buildings. One part of me likes to believe it’s a reaction to the affront to something representative which matters to a broad collection of people, but that nagging kernel also reminds me that it conveniently prioritizes the interests of those with power over the individuals, even to the point of being dismissive of the daily crimes suffered by a great many individuals.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sosuke 6y ago
I don't think it is okay to make comments like that about anyone. But I am talking about a threat and then wishing someone ill being different in nature. One carries the idea of direct action by the speaker.
- troupe 6y ago
  The hashtag does appear to be a call to action with an implied "You".
  - sosuke 6y ago
    Then I'd say I don't have enough insight or information to make good opinion. All my data was only from the article.
mattnewton 6y ago
It’s a different problem when someone with authority does this. “Someone #AssasinateTrump” from a random person without authority (implied or otherwise) to actually order an assassination runs afoul of their community guidelines, Trump saying we should take the capitol is likely a crime because of his authority. That being said, these Twitter guidelines are an absolute mess because they rely on human moderation and human attention. I don’t think they deserve their status as a defacto public square.

The parent said it would be worse if the author were somebody with power or fame - not if the target wasn't. Edit: Just clarifying, not agreeing. While I agree that there is subjectivity around how indirect a threat is, who the author and their audience is, etc, I do think in this case this tweet should be removed.

aksss 6y ago
There is this kernel of my soul that dislikes how things are worse when they happen to politicians than when they happen to fellow citizens, or to political buildings rather than family-owned buildings. One part of me likes to believe it’s a reaction to the affront to something representative which matters to a broad collection of people, but that nagging kernel also reminds me that it conveniently prioritizes the interests of those with power over the individuals, even to the point of being dismissive of the daily crimes suffered by a great many individuals.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sosuke 6y ago

I don't think it is okay to make comments like that about anyone. But I am talking about a threat and then wishing someone ill being different in nature. One carries the idea of direct action by the speaker.

troupe 6y ago
The hashtag does appear to be a call to action with an implied "You".
- sosuke 6y ago
  Then I'd say I don't have enough insight or information to make good opinion. All my data was only from the article.

mattnewton 6y ago

It’s a different problem when someone with authority does this. “Someone #AssasinateTrump” from a random person without authority (implied or otherwise) to actually order an assassination runs afoul of their community guidelines, Trump saying we should take the capitol is likely a crime because of his authority. That being said, these Twitter guidelines are an absolute mess because they rely on human moderation and human attention. I don’t think they deserve their status as a defacto public square.