3 ms·

What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.

by jshen 4y ago

proc0 4y ago
So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.
- jshen 4y ago
  I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him. Where is there a problem here?
  - proc0 4y ago
    My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard. Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
    - jshen 4y ago
      They aren’t a government entity!!!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem. > If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same. The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
  - proc0 4y ago
    I doubt that reasoning. I'm sure there are worse cases that were not banned, but of course one side thought Trump was an existential threat, so there were more underlying reasons. I think Twitter is about to release more email threads on that specific banning next week, so we'll see the real reason they banned him.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I doubt that reasoning. You can doubt what you want, but you seem like a lunatic if you accuse people who don’t doubt it of having a double standard based on your fantasies of what the secret reason is and your additional fantasy that they secretly share your view of the secret reason.
      - mcrad 4y ago
        dang 4y ago
        You can't do this here. We've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.

by jshen 4y ago

What’s the double standard? A private company can choose to be partisan. See Fox News or Truth Social.

So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same.

jshen 4y ago
I truly don’t understand your point. People can complain about Trump being on there. They can threaten to leave Twitter. Advertisers can pull out of Twitter. Twitter can choose to allow him to stay or ban him. Where is there a problem here?
- proc0 4y ago
  My interpretation of the article is that they're excusing direct interference by a government entity just because they're not directly in power (but obviously power is their objective). This implies that it would be justified for Trump to influence Twitter and have them ban people who speak against Trump, and this article should defend that as well. I have a feeling people would not see those two cases as equal. If they do, then great, that's consistent, but I'm pretty sure there are going to be massive protests, and that highlights the double standard. Sure, people can leave, complain, protest etc., my point is, that is a double standard.
  - jshen 4y ago
    They aren’t a government entity!!!
dragonwriter 4y ago
> So if Trump goes back on twitter, and he gains massive popularity winning the 2024 election, there is no problem right? There may be a problem, but the problem isn’t a free speech problem. > If so, there is no double standard, but I seriously doubt those who celebrated his ban, will now be ok with his return, despite the reasoning being the same. The reasoning behind the ban was inciting violence. If he is returned for the same reason, that’s…problematic from the moral perspective that sees inciting violence as problematic, whereas the ban is not. That’s not a double standard.
- proc0 4y ago
  I doubt that reasoning. I'm sure there are worse cases that were not banned, but of course one side thought Trump was an existential threat, so there were more underlying reasons. I think Twitter is about to release more email threads on that specific banning next week, so we'll see the real reason they banned him.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I doubt that reasoning. You can doubt what you want, but you seem like a lunatic if you accuse people who don’t doubt it of having a double standard based on your fantasies of what the secret reason is and your additional fantasy that they secretly share your view of the secret reason.
    - mcrad 4y ago
      - dang 4y ago
        You can't do this here. We've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.