←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 #
BurningFrog ◴[] No.23333082[source]
One factor is that Trump says a lot of dumb things, and almost none of them are true.

Instead he seems to say whatever outrageous thing that can get attention so he's the center of the news cycle. Once again, it worked.

When he actually does something to silence twitter, I'll be upset too. But I'm not falling for the "big crazy talk ploy" again.

replies(1): >>23333502 #
themacguffinman ◴[] No.23333502[source]
Hot off the press:

> President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive...

replies(1): >>23338660 #
1. BurningFrog ◴[] No.23338660{3}[source]
I think it will improve the debate a lot to have a concrete policy to discuss, rather than guesses about what Trump might do.