4 ms·

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lkxijlewlf 4y ago
Yes. The rich have a different set of rules everywhere.
haunter 4y ago
Yes, different rules and privileges.
arundi2 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 4y ago
> Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? Of course there is. Twitter's owner appoint managers who hire people to oversee censorship on the platform. These choices themselves are already biased towards the owners' interests and points of view. If you add to this ability of rich and powerful people/organizations to harass or influence Twitter, the bias is even stronger. Having said that - the tweet Trump was suspended for: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... does not seem like an incitement of violence.
hbosch 4y ago
If the president is publicly instigating toward North Korea on your platform, arguably you have the responsibility to allow people to witness what's being said. In the same way, CNN arguably has the responsibility to broadcast it if he was recorded by their cameras. It's probably not in the public interest to broadcast every person's incitations of violence or bigotry, but the president? Yes. Certainly you're not implying you should be treated exactly the same as the president of the United States...
- ricardoplouis 4y ago
  The public's interest is a weak argument. I can say it's not in the public's interest to have someone who lost the popular vote in office at all, but that is only my opinion and doesn't speak to the original point. I'm implying that the spirit of free speech should apply equally to all. If the president can come back after inciting violence, then everyone else should as well. It's not a selective principle that you get to choose how you follow. If you don't want violent rhetoric to spread then yes, limiting free speech and universally applying those rules is a viable path to achieve that. Otherwise, you create a regulatory environment that only applies to you if you don't have the power, political capital, or fanbase to yell loud enough in your favor.
dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused? Anyhoo, what's that got to do with twitter? Since when did they become the police?
- netsec_burn 4y ago
  The crime was inciting an insurrection. The president was not charged due to partisan politics, no president has ever actually been voted out by the Senate of their own party (correct me if I'm wrong), but historically this has been the most votes received from their party. It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture, including attempts to overturn the election. More details here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald... Twitter is responsible for moderating the users their platform, regardless of whether they are free speech purists. You cannot let your users plot crimes. That's why sites like Silk Road and AlphaBay were shut down.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    > You cannot let your users plot crimes. You can easily find tweets calling for trump and republicans to be killed on twitter from years ago and nobody bothered to ban those people so your statement rings hollow.
    - netsec_burn 4y ago
      That is a tu quoque fallacy.
      - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
        Given were talking about the trump ban I'm not sure it is, he was banned, countless antifa accounts calling for Andy ngo's death were not. There is a clear double standard, pointing that out isn't whataboutism it's simply calling bullshit on someone using the incite violence argument to say trump should stay banned.
banannaise 4y ago
The great irony is that you can't really do much to incite violence, no matter how hard you try; the rich and powerful, with their large platforms and massive followings, can do it with very little effort.
xdennis 4y ago
> Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? Yes, just like there's one for left wing vs right wing. Trump was banned for violence for saying he won't attend the inauguration. Yet tweets calling for violence against the right are allowed. Many of them are years old. You can search for yourself. Example: * https://twitter.com/bobmorr32749439/status/1524056586737504256 https://twitter.com/bobmorr32749439/status/15240565867375042... : "kill putin and trump and all the Republicans" * https://twitter.com/gnarlyymarleyy/status/1311119648520196096 https://twitter.com/gnarlyymarleyy/status/131111964852019609... : "can someone just assassinate trump so we can be done w this PLEASE"
s1artibartfast 4y ago
If anything, the stand for speech went the opposite direction in this case. “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Compare this "incitement to violence" against public posts calling for assassination of trump which were neither removed or resulted in bans.

Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lkxijlewlf 4y ago

Yes. The rich have a different set of rules everywhere.

haunter 4y ago

Yes, different rules and privileges.

arundi2 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

einpoklum 4y ago

> Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? Of course there is. Twitter's owner appoint managers who hire people to oversee censorship on the platform. These choices themselves are already biased towards the owners' interests and points of view. If you add to this ability of rich and powerful people/organizations to harass or influence Twitter, the bias is even stronger. Having said that - the tweet Trump was suspended for: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... does not seem like an incitement of violence.

hbosch 4y ago

If the president is publicly instigating toward North Korea on your platform, arguably you have the responsibility to allow people to witness what's being said. In the same way, CNN arguably has the responsibility to broadcast it if he was recorded by their cameras. It's probably not in the public interest to broadcast every person's incitations of violence or bigotry, but the president? Yes. Certainly you're not implying you should be treated exactly the same as the president of the United States...

ricardoplouis 4y ago
The public's interest is a weak argument. I can say it's not in the public's interest to have someone who lost the popular vote in office at all, but that is only my opinion and doesn't speak to the original point. I'm implying that the spirit of free speech should apply equally to all. If the president can come back after inciting violence, then everyone else should as well. It's not a selective principle that you get to choose how you follow. If you don't want violent rhetoric to spread then yes, limiting free speech and universally applying those rules is a viable path to achieve that. Otherwise, you create a regulatory environment that only applies to you if you don't have the power, political capital, or fanbase to yell loud enough in your favor.

dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago

When did trump incite violence? That sounds like a crime. Why wasn't he charged? Maybe you're confused? Anyhoo, what's that got to do with twitter? Since when did they become the police?

netsec_burn 4y ago
The crime was inciting an insurrection. The president was not charged due to partisan politics, no president has ever actually been voted out by the Senate of their own party (correct me if I'm wrong), but historically this has been the most votes received from their party. It's recommended to understand both the background and the event on January 6th to get a clear picture, including attempts to overturn the election. More details here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald... Twitter is responsible for moderating the users their platform, regardless of whether they are free speech purists. You cannot let your users plot crimes. That's why sites like Silk Road and AlphaBay were shut down.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > You cannot let your users plot crimes. You can easily find tweets calling for trump and republicans to be killed on twitter from years ago and nobody bothered to ban those people so your statement rings hollow.
  - netsec_burn 4y ago
    That is a tu quoque fallacy.
    - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
      Given were talking about the trump ban I'm not sure it is, he was banned, countless antifa accounts calling for Andy ngo's death were not. There is a clear double standard, pointing that out isn't whataboutism it's simply calling bullshit on someone using the incite violence argument to say trump should stay banned.

banannaise 4y ago

The great irony is that you can't really do much to incite violence, no matter how hard you try; the rich and powerful, with their large platforms and massive followings, can do it with very little effort.

xdennis 4y ago

> Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? Yes, just like there's one for left wing vs right wing. Trump was banned for violence for saying he won't attend the inauguration. Yet tweets calling for violence against the right are allowed. Many of them are years old. You can search for yourself. Example: * https://twitter.com/bobmorr32749439/status/1524056586737504256 https://twitter.com/bobmorr32749439/status/15240565867375042... : "kill putin and trump and all the Republicans" * https://twitter.com/gnarlyymarleyy/status/1311119648520196096 https://twitter.com/gnarlyymarleyy/status/131111964852019609... : "can someone just assassinate trump so we can be done w this PLEASE"

s1artibartfast 4y ago

If anything, the stand for speech went the opposite direction in this case. “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Compare this "incitement to violence" against public posts calling for assassination of trump which were neither removed or resulted in bans.