←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
standardUser ◴[] 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_ ◴[] 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 #
1. thewileyone ◴[] No.23332915[source]
Also not in the Constitution that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but decent human beings understand that that's not to be done.