←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: 0.213s | source
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 #
phailhaus ◴[29 May 20 15:41 UTC] No.23351291[source]▶
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
replies(7): >>23351347 #>>23351358 #>>23351763 #>>23351854 #>>23352523 #>>23353667 #>>23355046 #
formalsystem ◴[29 May 20 15:44 UTC] No.23351347[source]▶
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712

EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago

replies(5): >>23351398 #>>23351470 #>>23351474 #>>23351966 #>>23351999 #
augustt ◴[29 May 20 15:54 UTC] No.23351470[source]▶
Damaging property is not violence.
replies(4): >>23351714 #>>23351753 #>>23351835 #>>23351862 #
Nasrudith ◴[29 May 20 16:16 UTC] No.23351862[source]▶
I am pretty sure you would disagree if someone started smashing your front door or car. It is at best technically true in a deeply misleading way like calling a surgeon "a professional cutter and organ remover from the helpless".
replies(1): >>23351982 #
augustt ◴[29 May 20 16:24 UTC] No.23351982[source]▶
I wouldn't be too happy, but to me violence is damaging a living thing. Not property.
replies(2): >>23352152 #>>23352171 #
NikolaeVarius ◴[29 May 20 16:39 UTC] No.23352171[source]▶
I have a cane that I need to use to walk. Somebody breaks my cane. What is that?
replies(3): >>23352450 #>>23352717 #>>23356251 #
1. tareqak ◴[29 May 20 22:23 UTC] No.23356251[source]▶
Was the cane broken intentionally or unintentionally?