4 ms·

I did not call Elon marginalized or even imply it.

cycomanic 4y ago
> The previous bans were controversial because they marginalized a voice. It was never about the specific people in question. It was basically invalidating the voice of many people since these were highly influential people or politicians. Maybe I misunderstand you, but whose voice are you calling marginalized? Is it not the voice of politicians like e.g. Trump? Is Trump not a white rich and powerful person (I was not specifically talking about Musk). I think the problem was actually that Twitter under previous leadership was way too lenient with powerful people. Take Trump for example, he was arguably breaking Twitter TOS on a regular basis, but never faced consequences (I'd argue because he was driving engagement so it was not in Twitters interest to ban him). When they finally banned him, it thus seemed arbitrary. Similarly, how come Musk never got a suspension for his pedo comments, also pretty clearly a TOS violation. I think therein lies the main problem with most social media platforms, they clearly have different standards for people who are influential enough and the rest of the population and this is by no way a left/right thing.
- nightski 4y ago
  It's the constituents that voted for those politicians or support those influential people who are marginalized. You know in this case, almost 50% of the country. By silencing politicians especially (in a democracy anyways) you silence the people behind them. People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely. I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.
  - cauch 4y ago
    Are you saying that 50% of US is ... marginalized? How does that even work? And if 50% share similar political opinion, how is that even possible that this opinion would be somehow inaccessible? The opinion of people like Trump or Elon is very easy to access, and supported by plenty of people. The majority of them is never banned, because the bans are not targeting an opinion, but rather conspiracy theories and abuses. You can have exactly the same philosophy as Trump, talk and promote this philosophy, and yet never say something that will make you banned.
    - nightski 4y ago
      By publicly removing several democratically elected officials of a representative democracy from a platform commonly used for political communication in an official capacity yes I am in fact saying that those people are marginalized.
      - psd1 4y ago
        It's been interesting to follow this discussing but I find your thesis unconvincing. "Trump voters" is not a marginalised set, it contains super pacs and Peter Thiel. It may contain subsets that are marginalised but those sets are marginalised by being marginalised, not by being trump voters. People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat. Also, trump got away with his shit for years before being banned. That looks like privilege, not oppression. I take it you see the irony of being woke about the anti-woke
        OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        > People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat. As a resident HN Christian, I don't concur. We've seen a number of Christian individuals & businesses recently taken to court/UCMJ action for refusing to do things that are contrary to their religious (Christian) beliefs, or for openly stating their beliefs [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] The same protections afforded to observant jews and practicing muslims should also be afforded to Christians. It is in the Constitution after all. [1] https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-this-time-for-refusing-to-bake-gender-transition-celebration-cake/ https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-th... [2] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion-in-little-sisters-of-the-poor-provides-another-path-to-challenge-the-osha-vaccine-mandate/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion... [3] https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholic-church-it-isnt-about-birth-control.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholi... [4] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-christians https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-c...

> The previous bans were controversial because they marginalized a voice. It was never about the specific people in question. It was basically invalidating the voice of many people since these were highly influential people or politicians. Maybe I misunderstand you, but whose voice are you calling marginalized? Is it not the voice of politicians like e.g. Trump? Is Trump not a white rich and powerful person (I was not specifically talking about Musk). I think the problem was actually that Twitter under previous leadership was way too lenient with powerful people. Take Trump for example, he was arguably breaking Twitter TOS on a regular basis, but never faced consequences (I'd argue because he was driving engagement so it was not in Twitters interest to ban him). When they finally banned him, it thus seemed arbitrary. Similarly, how come Musk never got a suspension for his pedo comments, also pretty clearly a TOS violation. I think therein lies the main problem with most social media platforms, they clearly have different standards for people who are influential enough and the rest of the population and this is by no way a left/right thing.

nightski 4y ago
It's the constituents that voted for those politicians or support those influential people who are marginalized. You know in this case, almost 50% of the country. By silencing politicians especially (in a democracy anyways) you silence the people behind them. People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely. I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.
- cauch 4y ago
  Are you saying that 50% of US is ... marginalized? How does that even work? And if 50% share similar political opinion, how is that even possible that this opinion would be somehow inaccessible? The opinion of people like Trump or Elon is very easy to access, and supported by plenty of people. The majority of them is never banned, because the bans are not targeting an opinion, but rather conspiracy theories and abuses. You can have exactly the same philosophy as Trump, talk and promote this philosophy, and yet never say something that will make you banned.
  - nightski 4y ago
    By publicly removing several democratically elected officials of a representative democracy from a platform commonly used for political communication in an official capacity yes I am in fact saying that those people are marginalized.
    - psd1 4y ago
      It's been interesting to follow this discussing but I find your thesis unconvincing. "Trump voters" is not a marginalised set, it contains super pacs and Peter Thiel. It may contain subsets that are marginalised but those sets are marginalised by being marginalised, not by being trump voters. People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat. Also, trump got away with his shit for years before being banned. That looks like privilege, not oppression. I take it you see the irony of being woke about the anti-woke
      - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        > People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat. As a resident HN Christian, I don't concur. We've seen a number of Christian individuals & businesses recently taken to court/UCMJ action for refusing to do things that are contrary to their religious (Christian) beliefs, or for openly stating their beliefs [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] The same protections afforded to observant jews and practicing muslims should also be afforded to Christians. It is in the Constitution after all. [1] https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-this-time-for-refusing-to-bake-gender-transition-celebration-cake/ https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-th... [2] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion-in-little-sisters-of-the-poor-provides-another-path-to-challenge-the-osha-vaccine-mandate/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion... [3] https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholic-church-it-isnt-about-birth-control.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholi... [4] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-christians https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-c...