←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 4 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
standardUser ◴[27 May 20 19:46 UTC] No.23328914[source]▶
There seem to be some upside down priorities here. Many folks seem to be arguing that its an unacceptable form of censorship for a private platform to annotate content it allows others to post. Meanwhile, I'm seeing barely a mention of the fact that the President of the United States has threatened to use government power to shut down an entire sector of the economy devoted to communication. The latter is almost certainly a violation of the Constitution. The former, almost certainly not.
replies(5): >>23329641 #>>23330604 #>>23331781 #>>23332920 #>>23333082 #
meragrin_ ◴[27 May 20 22:00 UTC] No.23330604[source]▶
Perhaps they see it as targeting a political figure because of political differences rather than trying to prevent the spread of misinformation. I'm not seeing any annotations on a number prominent members of Congress spreading misinformation.

Where in the US Constitution does it say presidents cannot threaten companies? Obama had his share of threats. I'm sure they could find a suitable legal issue with Twitter targeting Trump while ignoring members of Congress.

replies(4): >>23330822 #>>23330866 #>>23330974 #>>23332915 #
standardUser ◴[27 May 20 22:20 UTC] No.23330822[source]▶
"Obama had his share of threats."

Cite two.

replies(1): >>23331597 #
1. austingulati ◴[27 May 20 23:44 UTC] No.23331597{3}[source]▶
A quick Google found two:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inve...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-obama-financials/obama-th...

Not sure this will support the original commenters point, as these "threats" have a basis in reality and appear to be good causes unlike Trump's, but these are "threats" by Obama at least according to the journalists involved.

Edit: why the downvotes? I am showing that the Trump supporter above is full of shit, Obama's "threats" were for good causes

replies(2): >>23332110 #>>23336555 #
2. freehunter ◴[28 May 20 00:56 UTC] No.23332110[source]▶
You might have avoided the downvotes if you had made it clear what your point was. As it reads without the edit, it sounds like you're arguing the opposite of what your edit says.

Edit - to be clear I did not downvote

replies(1): >>23332139 #
3. austingulati ◴[28 May 20 00:59 UTC] No.23332139[source]▶
Thanks for the reply. I had thought putting quotes around threats and including "appear to be good causes" would be enough. Lesson learned!
4. meragrin_ ◴[28 May 20 12:41 UTC] No.23336555[source]▶
Trump supporter? I cannot wait for Trump to be gone. If I were a Trump supporter, I would refer to him as President or President Trump. More like person who is not triggered just by the mere mention of Trump.

I never even insinuated Obama's threats were not for good causes. Part of being a president is to execute laws and regulations which includes threats of action.

Since I have no doubt someone will take my "President" comment above out of context, I will not refer to a political figure by their former position title. To me, wishing/expecting to be referred by their former position is akin to using it as a title of nobility and expecting to be treated as nobility.