←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 7 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.063s | 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 #
paulgb ◴[29 May 20 15:36 UTC] No.23351215[source]▶
> If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board.

One way to look at this is that that's exactly what Twitter has started doing. The president violated the TOS, and got the treatment prescribed under the TOS. His EO yesterday essentially asked for everyone to be treated in accordance with the TOS, so he's (ironically) getting exactly what he asked for.

It remains to be seen whether, in compliance with the EO, they apply this to everyone in a transparent and uniform way from now on. I hope they do.

replies(1): >>23351277 #
dfxm12 ◴[29 May 20 15:40 UTC] No.23351277[source]▶
Wait, Trump, the guy who had a platform plank complaining about his predecessors' use of executive orders as "power grabs" [0], actually issued an executive order about Twitter's TOS?

0 - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-19/trump-...

replies(2): >>23351355 #>>23351513 #
1. jcranmer ◴[29 May 20 15:56 UTC] No.23351513[source]▶
Don't worry... he also criticized Obama for golfing too much, and has gone golfing more frequently than Obama.

And Senate Republicans have openly asked judges to resign so they can be replaced by conservative judges, and their justification for why it's okay to do this so close to an election but it wasn't okay to confirm Garland so close to an election literally amounts to "Obama's a Democrat, Trump's a Republican."

replies(2): >>23351791 #>>23351889 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[29 May 20 16:13 UTC] No.23351791[source]▶
To be fair, the judges asked to resign (really retire) are conservatives. It's the same reason Ginsburg hasn't retired despite her health issues -- everything to do with which party would be nominating her replacement.

The next time the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the whitehouse, I wouldn't expect them be interested in confirming any judges right before a Presidential election either.

replies(1): >>23351917 #
3. tzs ◴[29 May 20 16:18 UTC] No.23351889[source]▶
> And Senate Republicans have openly asked judges to resign so they can be replaced by conservative judges, and their justification for why it's okay to do this so close to an election but it wasn't okay to confirm Garland so close to an election literally amounts to "Obama's a Democrat, Trump's a Republican."

It's worse than that. There were at least three high ranking Republican Senators who said that if Clinton won the election, they would go her entire 4 (or 8) years without confirming any Supreme Court nominees, keeping any vacant seats open until there was a Republican President again to fill them.

replies(1): >>23352513 #
4. ghshephard ◴[29 May 20 16:19 UTC] No.23351917[source]▶
Or ever, really. What incentive is there for a party in opposition to ever confirm the opposing party's choice for the Supreme Court.
replies(1): >>23352045 #
5. AnthonyMouse ◴[29 May 20 16:27 UTC] No.23352045{3}[source]▶
In past times there was a thing called compromise. Not very familiar anymore, I know. Instead of leaving a seat empty for the next ten years until the same party controls the Senate and the whitehouse (and not knowing ahead of time whether it'll be yours or not), the President can nominate a moderate which the opposition party Senate might confirm for the same reason. Better a moderate now than the other guy's candidate later.

But when you're looking at electoral math that says you're about to have even odds of taking the whitehouse and probably won't lose the Senate, that doesn't really apply.

replies(1): >>23355524 #
6. Simulacra ◴[29 May 20 17:03 UTC] No.23352513[source]▶
As distasteful and unprofessional as it is, it is their right. If the Senate, and its Senators, for whatever reason decide not to act, there's nothing the President can do. It's distasteful, but it's neither illegal nor out of character.
7. ghshephard ◴[29 May 20 21:03 UTC] No.23355524{4}[source]▶
That's probably the most insightful and (to my mind) intelligent assessment I've heard when asking that question. It eliminates any handwaving about "tradition" or "precedent" - and gets right down to the fundamental elements of power and control, and risk.