←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 8 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.439s | source | bottom
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 #
hpoe ◴[29 May 20 15:36 UTC] No.23351218[source]▶
There is a worse side effect that comes from conservatives feeling that they have been silenced, as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it. The real risk here is that if more and more outlets for conservative voices are silenced, whether for good cause or not, this will reinforce the narrative that many of them have that they are the defenders of the truth and right and there is a vast conspiracy operating to seize their guns, deprive them of their rights, and whatever else they can imagine. As that happens there becomes more and more moral justification and greater and greater need there is seen to employ violence in end of their goals.

Ultimately the more and more "dangerous" opinions and people who share those opinions are silenced the more and more dangerous they become in reality.

EDIT: The nature of this comment is intended to be observational not advocational.

replies(5): >>23351371 #>>23351391 #>>23351759 #>>23351978 #>>23353314 #
1. hpoe ◴[29 May 20 15:54 UTC] No.23351473[source]▶
The problem with your response if you've fundementally divided the world into the fearless, social justice serving left and the corrupt, evil, fascist, right. It can be assumed that the far right is not going to change their mind at any point; however the majority of the world isn't far right or far left. Many people are moderates that could go one way or the other.

By designating everyone who doesn't agree with you as "the right" that can't every act in good faith and is irredeemable you galvanize the more moderates. This incident won't have a substantive impact on the far right, but it may cause a change in opinion in more moderate voices.

Essentially be advocating this black and white extremism you hurt your cause and play into the very narrative that those on the other side are saying.

replies(1): >>23351586 #
2. luckydata ◴[29 May 20 16:00 UTC] No.23351586[source]▶
I'm sorry reality has taken such a fascist bent but it's not my fault, it's just something we have to contend with now. But your both-side-ism is morally reprehensible in the context of what's happening right now.
replies(1): >>23351663 #
3. koheripbal ◴[29 May 20 16:04 UTC] No.23351653[source]▶
> Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor

None of them? They are ALL acting bad faith? Is that a good faith argument?

4. Avicebron ◴[29 May 20 16:04 UTC] No.23351663{3}[source]▶
What exactly is happening and how can you really say that the reality is now fascist? It sounds like you've already made the both-side-ism implicitly yourself.
replies(1): >>23351770 #
5. NateEag ◴[29 May 20 16:25 UTC] No.23352013[source]▶
I'm a United States citizen.

I'm not a pure conservative, but I expect I hold several views you'd find repugnant and label as "conservative". For instance, I am strongly pro-life. Another one: I believe deeply in the existence of God (and other supernatural beings).

I am, therefore, a bad-faith actor, if I'm following right?

replies(1): >>23352064 #
6. luckydata ◴[29 May 20 16:29 UTC] No.23352064[source]▶
no, you're not following, but I suspect you're doing it on purpose and that was my point.

edit: let me add a proof point from something that matters to you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/a...

Conservatives in this country believe in "small government", "individual freedoms" and "separation between church and state" until a large slice of their electorate turns out to be religious fundamentalists, then they start mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion etc...

Does that sound like intellectual honesty or good faith?

replies(1): >>23353828 #
7. dang ◴[29 May 20 17:14 UTC] No.23352667{5}[source]▶
Would you please stop breaking the HN guidelines with ideological flamewar and personal attacks? It's not what this site is for, you do it all the time, and we've warned you several times over several years. In fact I'm surprised we haven't banned you yet, and if you keep this up we will.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

8. NateEag ◴[29 May 20 18:37 UTC] No.23353828{3}[source]▶
My question was, in fact, in good faith. I wanted to know if you would apply your generalization to me, as the way it read it seemed to me like it would.

Apparently it doesn't, so I guess I didn't get what you meant.

I tried to go back and reread it, but it's flagged now and I don't see a way to.

I think your example is actually closer to intellectual honesty than you think it is.

"Small government" is not "no government".

To a pro-life conservative, abortion is murder.

I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't think the government should be involved in preventing murder.

Requiring you look at the victim before killing them is a pretty pathetic protection against murder, but it's probably better than nothing.

I'd guess from your framing that you support abortion rights. If so, I can certainly see why this would look like intellectual dishonesty to you, but as I argued above, I think that's due to not understanding the people you're talking about well enough, at least in this case.