4 ms·

I don't see why that would be a problem as long as he complies with all rules... or do you believe that Trump needs to be treated differently?

slg 4y ago
Well he didn't follow the rules the first time and we should all know by now that Trump is going to change. So what does change, the rules or the equal application of the rules?
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Pretty sure Elon will change the rules.
  - ratsmack 4y ago
    I suspect they will be more fairly applied than what is currently done.
gorgoiler 4y ago
If you have this crazy guy in town who keeps buying dozens of raw chickens and stuffing them into trash cans in the town square on the hottest summer days… and you are the one store in town selling raw chickens… you probably just ban the crazy guy, right? He can run for office. He can win office. But just no more chicken stuff please. It really upsets the community. It’s your chicken store and you can ban anyone you like, especially the weird chicken trash can guy.
- brigandish 4y ago
  You have a guy in town that is powerful because many people support him. His opponents call him the "crazy chicken guy" and get him banned from the town square. They also try, and sometimes succeed, to get other people in the town banned from the square. Several business owners are fearful of this illiberal group. A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled. That would seem a more accurate depiction. Regardless, Trump has not been stuffing chickens into bins, you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it. Are you okay with the Saudi royal family controlling Twitter too?
  - bduerst 4y ago
    Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter. That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote: > A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled. We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls? As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.
      - andrepd 4y ago
        >Musk's wish to increase transparency What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Those aren't related to transparency. > He has sued whistleblowers, The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies? > Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder. Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.
nerdjon 4y ago
The chances of him actually complying with any rules? (Well maybe after Musk sets his new rules I guess...). But Trump broke the rules multiple times and then was trying to get around his first ban. Treating Trump differently would be giving him his account back, I don't see any reason that if you try to get around your ban you should get your account back.
monksy 4y ago
He didn't before, still behaved badly, and finally got removed for demonstrating significant harm to the US. There is no reason to believe that he's changed.
Spooky23 4y ago
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Why would Twitter want to be associated with a guy who attempted to overthrow the US government? Because there's a better than even odds chance he'll be the next POTUS and if you're a billionaire with a reputation (deserved or no) for sketchiness, why antagonise the party that explicitly supports sketchy billionaires?
  - overtonwhy 4y ago
    Trump will not be eligible to run in 2024 because he engaged in seditious conspiracy against the government. He will be disqualified under the 14th amendment along with his sycophants. "Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...
    - stale2002 4y ago
      No, thats not going to happen. The supreme court, which is 6-3 conservative would not let Trump be disqualified like you are suggesting.
- MrMan 4y ago
  Because if he succeeds next time you don't want to get executed with the other liberals

slg 4y ago

Well he didn't follow the rules the first time and we should all know by now that Trump is going to change. So what does change, the rules or the equal application of the rules?

BurningFrog 4y ago
Pretty sure Elon will change the rules.
- ratsmack 4y ago
  I suspect they will be more fairly applied than what is currently done.

gorgoiler 4y ago

If you have this crazy guy in town who keeps buying dozens of raw chickens and stuffing them into trash cans in the town square on the hottest summer days… and you are the one store in town selling raw chickens… you probably just ban the crazy guy, right? He can run for office. He can win office. But just no more chicken stuff please. It really upsets the community. It’s your chicken store and you can ban anyone you like, especially the weird chicken trash can guy.

brigandish 4y ago
You have a guy in town that is powerful because many people support him. His opponents call him the "crazy chicken guy" and get him banned from the town square. They also try, and sometimes succeed, to get other people in the town banned from the square. Several business owners are fearful of this illiberal group. A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled. That would seem a more accurate depiction. Regardless, Trump has not been stuffing chickens into bins, you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it. Are you okay with the Saudi royal family controlling Twitter too?
- bduerst 4y ago
  Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter. That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote: > A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled. We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls? As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      >Musk's wish to increase transparency What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Those aren't related to transparency. > He has sued whistleblowers, The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies? > Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder. Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.

nerdjon 4y ago

The chances of him actually complying with any rules? (Well maybe after Musk sets his new rules I guess...). But Trump broke the rules multiple times and then was trying to get around his first ban. Treating Trump differently would be giving him his account back, I don't see any reason that if you try to get around your ban you should get your account back.

monksy 4y ago

He didn't before, still behaved badly, and finally got removed for demonstrating significant harm to the US. There is no reason to believe that he's changed.

Spooky23 4y ago

zimpenfish 4y ago
> Why would Twitter want to be associated with a guy who attempted to overthrow the US government? Because there's a better than even odds chance he'll be the next POTUS and if you're a billionaire with a reputation (deserved or no) for sketchiness, why antagonise the party that explicitly supports sketchy billionaires?
- overtonwhy 4y ago
  Trump will not be eligible to run in 2024 because he engaged in seditious conspiracy against the government. He will be disqualified under the 14th amendment along with his sycophants. "Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...
  - stale2002 4y ago
    No, thats not going to happen. The supreme court, which is 6-3 conservative would not let Trump be disqualified like you are suggesting.
MrMan 4y ago
Because if he succeeds next time you don't want to get executed with the other liberals