←back to thread

1061 points danso | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ikeyany ◴[] No.23349451[source]
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?"

The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

replies(11): >>23349490 #>>23349574 #>>23349607 #>>23349609 #>>23349633 #>>23349657 #>>23349681 #>>23350059 #>>23353733 #>>23353915 #>>23354818 #
mc32 ◴[] No.23349681[source]
Well, so do you censor things like Dr Dre’s 187 because it might be interpreted as inciting violence against (corrupt) police? A public figure of renown among fans.
replies(3): >>23349743 #>>23349779 #>>23349867 #
ikeyany ◴[] No.23349743[source]
Two notes: 1) I am not Jack Dorsey and Twitter is not my product, so I'm not sure why you said "you". 2) Dr Dre is not the president of the United States and does not have the authority to direct law enforcement and the military... surely you see the difference.
replies(2): >>23349771 #>>23349789 #
mc32 ◴[] No.23349771[source]
People “affiliated” certainly can direct violence.
replies(1): >>23349796 #
1. ikeyany ◴[] No.23349796[source]
I think Dr Dre would be censored if he were president.
replies(2): >>23349915 #>>23354148 #
2. mc32 ◴[] No.23349915[source]
That’s a good thought experiment. They might. It seems they would under current rules. Maybe can run for mayorship somewhere and see what happens when he tweets.
3. jaquers ◴[] No.23354148[source]
I think Dr. Dre is a sensible human being who's able to distinguish between art that he made 30 years ago and his current hypothetical circumstance, in which he would presumably act w/ the the dignity, prestige and responsibility of the office.