Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

    (twitter.com)
    1061 points danso | 11 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.451s | source | bottom
    Show context
    danso ◴[29 May 20 07:31 UTC] No.23347200[source]▶
    Link to @realDonaldTrump tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12662311007807447...

    tweet text:

    > ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

    Disclaimer text:

    > This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Learn more

    "Learn more" links to this page about "public-interest exceptions"

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...

    edit: here's the official thread from @TwitterComms about it: https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345

    replies(3): >>23347313 #>>23348215 #>>23352916 #
    1. noobermin ◴[29 May 20 07:46 UTC] No.23347313[source]▶
    Why is this reply being downvoted? It is merely informative.
    replies(5): >>23347353 #>>23347364 #>>23347463 #>>23347669 #>>23351311 #
    2. all2 ◴[29 May 20 07:49 UTC] No.23347353[source]▶
    It shows the actual words, which are hard to spin. If we keep what was done vague, we can spin it any way we please.
    replies(1): >>23351844 #
    3. doublesCs ◴[29 May 20 07:50 UTC] No.23347364[source]▶
    > Why is this reply being downvoted? It is merely informative.

    Because this is HN. Expect some guidelines-lawyer to cite some section that was technically breached by that informative reply.

    4. dntbnmpls ◴[29 May 20 08:03 UTC] No.23347463[source]▶
    > It is merely informative.

    That's the problem.

    When facts/information doesn't align with one's agenda, some people have a terrible habit of trying to have it hidden/banned/removed/etc.

    You would think in hackernews of all places, we'd upvote the comment to see exactly what trump wrote so that we can decide for ourselves when it was "glorifying violence". Sadly, many here don't want that to happen.

    5. bilbo0s ◴[29 May 20 08:34 UTC] No.23347669[source]▶
    I think because it just restates what's in the link being discussed, when the link is not inaccessible nor behind a paywall. There are a lot of people who think that's bad form on HN. That's my guess. People trying to force everyone to "read the articles" on HN.
    replies(1): >>23347951 #
    6. ttonkytonk ◴[29 May 20 09:19 UTC] No.23347951[source]▶
    I appreciate someone posting what was actually said because I have limited data.
    replies(1): >>23347991 #
    7. doublesCs ◴[29 May 20 09:29 UTC] No.23347991{3}[source]▶
    I appreciate it because I don't want to open the sluggish website that is twitter.
    replies(1): >>23350849 #
    8. Dayshine ◴[29 May 20 15:11 UTC] No.23350849{4}[source]▶
    I appreciate it because when I follow twitter links in my hacker news app I get rate limit blocked...
    9. _prototype_ ◴[29 May 20 15:42 UTC] No.23351311[source]▶
    HN is quickly turning into a leftist SJW and socialist haven, similar to Reddit
    10. koheripbal ◴[29 May 20 16:15 UTC] No.23351844[source]▶
    That's interesting. I interpreted it the exact opposite way. That looking at the words - they don't seem so bad, so the liberal-minded HN users downvoted to keep the details away.

    Funny how personal bias can twist perceptions.

    replies(2): >>23352268 #>>23366667 #
    11. all2 ◴[31 May 20 02:28 UTC] No.23366667{3}[source]▶
    I think you and I are thinking the same thing: if the source is available, then the reader can form their own opinion.