←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 6 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Jestar342 ◴[29 May 20 16:12 UTC] No.23351776[source]▶
Erm, what? This is just not true, and is a false dichotomy. Moderation is hard. Always has been. Stuff will slip through the cracks.

POTUS has the most popular (and currently most controversial - note, that's _controversial_ not _extreme_ or some other morph) so it's easy to see why Twitter are on top of it. Other blue-checked accounts, whilst more "important" than unverified, just simply don't compare to the importance and prevalance of POTUS' account.

replies(2): >>23352276 #>>23355018 #
efitz ◴[29 May 20 16:46 UTC] No.23352276[source]▶
If most of the mistakes happen in one direction, then I would argue that there's some other mechanism at work than just "mistakes".

Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw...

Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...

replies(6): >>23352374 #>>23352668 #>>23352716 #>>23352797 #>>23353381 #>>23355255 #
gameswithgo ◴[29 May 20 16:52 UTC] No.23352374[source]▶
Maybe conservative america needs to appeal to people smart enough to start their own tech companies, so they can compete in the free market to do things the way they like.
replies(5): >>23352676 #>>23352936 #>>23353084 #>>23353151 #>>23353722 #
zarkov99 ◴[29 May 20 17:15 UTC] No.23352676[source]▶
Maybe companies should be idelogical neutral instead? Or do you also think liberal America should start to appeal to conscientious and patriotical people so they can have their own armed forces and police?
replies(6): >>23352783 #>>23352838 #>>23352851 #>>23352864 #>>23353004 #>>23353085 #
Jtsummers ◴[29 May 20 17:28 UTC] No.23352851[source]▶
Why should they be neutral and how would you enforce that? What does "ideological neutral" even mean?
replies(1): >>23353340 #
1. zarkov99 ◴[29 May 20 18:01 UTC] No.23353340[source]▶
Because corporations have disproportionate effect on the public and their mandate is to make money not proseletize whatever brand of BS the CEO happens to believe in.
replies(1): >>23353436 #
2. Jtsummers ◴[29 May 20 18:07 UTC] No.23353436[source]▶
Ok, then define "neutral" and how it would be enforced.
replies(2): >>23353614 #>>23354633 #
3. zarkov99 ◴[29 May 20 18:22 UTC] No.23353614[source]▶
It is a tough problem. I think social media companies should treated more like utilities than publishers and should not be held responsible for their content beyond removing illegal materials. I think they should provide their users with the tools they need to moderate their feeds themselves, with an emphasis on transparency and user control. We do not need Twitter and Facebook to protect us from each other.
replies(1): >>23353699 #
4. riffic ◴[29 May 20 18:28 UTC] No.23353699{3}[source]▶
> I think social media companies should treated more like utilities

I don't think that's a good, or even workable solution. Social media companies are not public utilities.

replies(1): >>23353807 #
5. zarkov99 ◴[29 May 20 18:36 UTC] No.23353807{4}[source]▶
I may have used the wrong term. I do not mean utilities in that sense, I mean they should act as carriers rather than publishers of information. That is more like the phone company and less like the NY Times.
6. makeb1 ◴[29 May 20 19:45 UTC] No.23354633[source]▶
If the Internet companies want common carrier protections like generally not being responsible for user actions, they have to act like a common carrier.

I'm saying this as someone who thinks Twitter in general is stupid, Trump behaves like a clown on Twitter and the best outcome would be if everyone stopped using Twitter.

But you cannot have it both ways, and in that particular issue he is right.