5 ms·

I'm curious how it got better when Trump was kicked off? Also, deleting all posts and links to the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election might have dra

by johng 5y ago

I'm curious how it got better when Trump was kicked off? Also, deleting all posts and links to the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election might have drastically changed the election. Is asking them to be fair for stories on the right as well as stories on the left asking too much?

gigatexal 5y ago
Trump is a toxic individual that used the platform to bully and lie. His lies about Covid got his followers to avoid the vaccine and some died. His lies about the election undermine democracy. There’s no reasoning with him. His removal cleaned up the site a lot. Though this is my opinion and Trump-loving HN is going to downvote me for it.
- johng 5y ago
  I agree with you that he is a toxic individual and he definitely told lots of lies. This happens on Twitter all the time though. Politicians from both sides do this but they don't get banned for life.... and never a sitting or ex President. What about the other censorship I mentioned, ie. banning all Hunter Biden content for being "false" when it was (and always has been, and still is) actually true?
  - gigatexal 5y ago
    In the grand scheme of things a laptop is a lot less important than a sitting President inciting a riot to overturn an election. You know neither are even in the same realm of magnitude. Stop making three equal. But even if Twitter was censoring the right so be it. They don’t have to be fair to any one side. The right can build their own platform and censor the left. I won’t join it. Because and I don’t know how many times this needs to be reiterated: Twitter has no obligation to be fair to anything or anyone. It’s not a public square. It’s not a federal institution. It’s a platform. And platforms can make editorial decisions.
    - john_the_writer 5y ago
      No.. If it allowed to edit, then its subject to the laws of a mag or news paper. If it's not subject to those laws then it's not allowed to edit. It has to choose. Section 230(c)(2)
      - gigatexal 5y ago
        “ No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or” Trump fits all of that AND is a threat to democracy. That there’s porn on the site doesn’t matter.
        johng 5y ago
        If they enforce that equally on everyone, I would be OK with that. There are plenty of popular figures on the left who fit that same definition but they get a pass. It's the enforcement of the rules unequally that many of us find repulsive.
        gigatexal 5y ago
        “ If they enforce that equally on everyone, I would be OK with that. There are plenty of popular figures on the left who fit that same definition but they get a pass. It's the enforcement of the rules unequally that many of us find repulsive.” Where does it say they have to be equal in their treatment? It doesn’t. There’s a right side and a wrong side to things. If Twitter leans left by not editorializing and editing things on one side or the other so be it. For now they’re taking down things I disagree with and that’s fine by me. Those that don’t like it can go to Parler, Truth Social (lol), Gettr, or any other such place.
        johng 5y ago
        At least you are honest and up front about your bias. Those of us who care about free speech see just what a slippery slope it is. Today you are ok with it because agree with it, but there may come a time where you don’t. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
john_the_writer 5y ago
I wondered about that too. I just blocked him. Like walking away from a preacher standing on a box in time square. I don't agree that we're Trump loving here. I personally thought he did the world wrong. He pulled down the collective brain. But I will say he's not alone. I think the issue of free speech can best be summed up in this question. Which one of your friends or family members do you wish to nominate as the person who gets to tell you what you can read? If you cannot nominate one person (specifically one person) then you can't honestly argue against FS.

by johng 5y ago

gigatexal 5y ago

Trump is a toxic individual that used the platform to bully and lie. His lies about Covid got his followers to avoid the vaccine and some died. His lies about the election undermine democracy. There’s no reasoning with him. His removal cleaned up the site a lot. Though this is my opinion and Trump-loving HN is going to downvote me for it.

johng 5y ago
I agree with you that he is a toxic individual and he definitely told lots of lies. This happens on Twitter all the time though. Politicians from both sides do this but they don't get banned for life.... and never a sitting or ex President. What about the other censorship I mentioned, ie. banning all Hunter Biden content for being "false" when it was (and always has been, and still is) actually true?
- gigatexal 5y ago
  In the grand scheme of things a laptop is a lot less important than a sitting President inciting a riot to overturn an election. You know neither are even in the same realm of magnitude. Stop making three equal. But even if Twitter was censoring the right so be it. They don’t have to be fair to any one side. The right can build their own platform and censor the left. I won’t join it. Because and I don’t know how many times this needs to be reiterated: Twitter has no obligation to be fair to anything or anyone. It’s not a public square. It’s not a federal institution. It’s a platform. And platforms can make editorial decisions.
  - john_the_writer 5y ago
    No.. If it allowed to edit, then its subject to the laws of a mag or news paper. If it's not subject to those laws then it's not allowed to edit. It has to choose. Section 230(c)(2)
    - gigatexal 5y ago
      “ No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or” Trump fits all of that AND is a threat to democracy. That there’s porn on the site doesn’t matter.
      - johng 5y ago
        If they enforce that equally on everyone, I would be OK with that. There are plenty of popular figures on the left who fit that same definition but they get a pass. It's the enforcement of the rules unequally that many of us find repulsive.
      - gigatexal 5y ago
        “ If they enforce that equally on everyone, I would be OK with that. There are plenty of popular figures on the left who fit that same definition but they get a pass. It's the enforcement of the rules unequally that many of us find repulsive.” Where does it say they have to be equal in their treatment? It doesn’t. There’s a right side and a wrong side to things. If Twitter leans left by not editorializing and editing things on one side or the other so be it. For now they’re taking down things I disagree with and that’s fine by me. Those that don’t like it can go to Parler, Truth Social (lol), Gettr, or any other such place.
        johng 5y ago
        At least you are honest and up front about your bias. Those of us who care about free speech see just what a slippery slope it is. Today you are ok with it because agree with it, but there may come a time where you don’t. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

john_the_writer 5y ago

I wondered about that too. I just blocked him. Like walking away from a preacher standing on a box in time square. I don't agree that we're Trump loving here. I personally thought he did the world wrong. He pulled down the collective brain. But I will say he's not alone. I think the issue of free speech can best be summed up in this question. Which one of your friends or family members do you wish to nominate as the person who gets to tell you what you can read? If you cannot nominate one person (specifically one person) then you can't honestly argue against FS.