←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 1 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.306s | source
Show context
lykahb ◴[29 May 20 15:34 UTC] No.23351178[source]▶
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published.

By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.

replies(7): >>23351236 #>>23351412 #>>23351773 #>>23351797 #>>23352829 #>>23355936 #>>23358514 #
seph-reed ◴[29 May 20 15:37 UTC] No.23351236[source]▶
They fucked this up so badly.

They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it."

Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.

replies(3): >>23351502 #>>23353882 #>>23355397 #
hypersoar ◴[29 May 20 15:56 UTC] No.23351502[source]▶
We'll, they're certainly escalating. I don't think that Trump actually wants to shut Twitter down, nor does he want to get banned there. The banning would rile up his base, but it would do so at the expense of his primary channel of communication. This action puts the ball back in Trump's court and asks him how far he wants to actually go.
replies(1): >>23351819 #
riffic ◴[29 May 20 16:14 UTC] No.23351819[source]▶
let the white house spin up its own activitypub instance, then.

shouldn't public communications occur on public infrastructure?

replies(1): >>23356012 #
1. closetohome ◴[29 May 20 21:55 UTC] No.23356012[source]▶
Well that's the ridiculous part of all this. Anyone with $20 and a half hour to spare can whip up their own blog on their own domain and post anything they want. As far as accessibility goes, that website will be 100% equal to Twitter.

These private platforms are only being conflated with public infrastructure because people have such a narrow view of what constitutes "the internet." It's ridiculous for a politician's primary means of communication to be over a private platform to begin with. Could you imagine if Clinton only talked to the press via AOL chatroom? The fact that we're debating it as though Trump is being censored by CSPAN just shows how much the abnormal has become normal.