←back to thread

707 points patd | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Ididntdothis ◴[] No.23323232[source]
I feel like we are slowly reaching the state the movie “Idiocracy” describes. I feel very torn about this. On the one hand I don’t think we should leave it up to companies like Twitter to censor things. On the other hand I find it hard to believe that the president is constantly claiming things without any evidence backing up. It started with the claims of millions of illegal voters in 2016 and the commission they started disbanding quietly after finding nothing. And now publicly spreading rumors about killing somebody.

It’s insane how little respect the US has for the integrity of its political system. As long as it may hurt the “other” side everything is ok without regard to the damage they are constantly doing the health of the system.

replies(20): >>23323289 #>>23323306 #>>23323342 #>>23323354 #>>23323411 #>>23323418 #>>23323422 #>>23323430 #>>23323448 #>>23323480 #>>23323541 #>>23323551 #>>23323586 #>>23323615 #>>23323628 #>>23323640 #>>23323674 #>>23323676 #>>23323863 #>>23324280 #
dathinab ◴[] No.23323411[source]
> On the one hand I don’t think we should leave it up to companies like Twitter to censor things.

True, but the think is Twitter did not censor his post. They added a "fact-check" hint that just pointed out that he was speaking made up thinks containing a link to an informative article.

This is very different to censorship. People can still freely decided to believe him, or read the facts and don't or read the facts and still believe him.

It's comparable with threaten to shutdown or control printed press when a specific new letter complained that what he says is complete makeup and wrong.

replies(3): >>23323485 #>>23323517 #>>23323996 #
nautilus12 ◴[] No.23323485[source]
For people that treat a "Fact Check" as an automatic "filter out this information" (I think there is a huge subset of the population that does, people don't thoughtfully take into account Fact Checks, they just treat them as a rebuke), it has the net effect of censorship. The move by twitter is kind of dumb in that sense because the population has already polarized into groups that think anything trump says is false, and those who do not. They are just basically putting an official seal on which side of that argument they land.
replies(3): >>23323511 #>>23323576 #>>23323732 #
shadowgovt ◴[] No.23323511[source]
Allowing him to post on their service with a counterpoint stitched right underneath his misinformation is far preferable for him to alternatives they could choose.

Those alternatives would be "censorship" (in some sense; not any real legal sense).

This is not censorship.

replies(1): >>23323593 #
1. username90 ◴[] No.23323593[source]
What is the difference between this and the top tweet response posting the same response as always happened before with his tweets? The only thing we learned is that Twitter is no longer even trying to be impartial.
replies(1): >>23323675 #
2. shadowgovt ◴[] No.23323675[source]
Twitter hasn't been trying to be impartial since the time they chose not to enforce their TOS when the US elected Trump, so that's nothing new.

The difference is that Twitter's editorial voice differs from the voice of some Twitter user.