Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)

Show context

partiallypro ◴[29 May 20 15:16 UTC] No.23350905[source]▶

Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

replies(35): >>23350963 #>>23351063 #>>23351117 #>>23351215 #>>23351218 #>>23351256 #>>23351291 #>>23351365 #>>23351367 #>>23351370 #>>23351380 #>>23351415 #>>23351424 #>>23351434 #>>23351471 #>>23351559 #>>23351591 #>>23351631 #>>23351685 #>>23351712 #>>23351729 #>>23351776 #>>23351793 #>>23351887 #>>23351928 #>>23352027 #>>23352201 #>>23352388 #>>23352822 #>>23352854 #>>23352953 #>>23353440 #>>23353605 #>>23354917 #>>23355009 #

1. youeseh ◴[29 May 20 15:20 UTC] No.23350963[source]▶

>>23350905 #

Instead of being the police, Twitter should do what Rotten Tomatoes does. There are plenty of people - journalists and researchers analyzing the facts behind what celebrities say. They should analyze what the analysts say and display a score.

replies(3): >>23351034 #>>23351965 #>>23354379 #

2. tantalor ◴[29 May 20 15:24 UTC] No.23351034[source]▶

>>23350963 (TP) #

[insert black mirror joke reference]

3. AnthonyMouse ◴[29 May 20 16:22 UTC] No.23351965[source]▶

>>23350963 (TP) #

Even better, directly link the research on the topic, from both sides. Instead of drawing a conclusion on behalf of everybody, give people what they need to draw their own.

replies(1): >>23352653 #

4. 12elephant ◴[29 May 20 17:13 UTC] No.23352653[source]▶

>>23351965 #

That's what already happens. Look at the comments on any prominent person's tweet and you'll see people going back and forth about what's right and what's false.

No one needs to do anything here. People can research and find stuff out for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.

replies(1): >>23354723 #

5. gurkendoktor ◴[29 May 20 19:21 UTC] No.23354379[source]▶

>>23350963 (TP) #

The problem then becomes, who decides which tweets to fact-check? If most politicians at the higher levels are liars, singling out a few of them is unfair even if Trump is notorious for it.

Twitter can clearly not fact-check every single tweet on its platform. But what if they did it for every tweet (maybe from a verified account) that X people report for being untruthful? Trump would look bad even if Twitter held everyone to the same standard, and the blue checkmark would come with some responsibility not to lie, so why not?

replies(1): >>23358455 #

6. gurkendoktor ◴[29 May 20 19:53 UTC] No.23354723{3}[source]▶

>>23352653 #

Absolutely, I am someone who always reads comments (yes, even on YouTube) because they often serve as a poor man's fact check. However, Twitter apparently has plans to sabotage that: https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/08/twitter-limit-replies-feature...

7. youeseh ◴[30 May 20 04:24 UTC] No.23358455[source]▶

>>23354379 #

Who decides which Tweats to fact-check: If someone is famous enough, you can bet that there will be at least one reporter frothing for the opportunity to be counted among trusted fact-checkers. Twitter might have to figure out a balance among reviewers but thats a lot less work than fact-checking each message.

↑