←back to thread

1061 points danso | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.439s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.23347437[source]
Twitter policy:

"We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the Tweet(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and/or temporarily limiting their ability to Tweet for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended."

Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions".

They've suspended the accounts of prominent people many times before.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions

replies(7): >>23350687 #>>23352351 #>>23353399 #>>23353556 #>>23354990 #>>23357399 #>>23369630 #
ardy42 ◴[] No.23353556[source]
> Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions".

I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter has exempted Trump's accounts from all automated moderation. However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office.

replies(3): >>23354407 #>>23354791 #>>23354835 #
zapita ◴[] No.23354407[source]
> However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office.

At the top management level, they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office (a plausible scenario at this point), and how that scenario affects their bottom line.

They probably don’t want US institutions to dissolve into full-blown autocracy... But on the other hand, if that were to happen, then it would be better for the stock price if they hadn’t burned all bridges with the new leader for life.

You can bet that Zuckerberg is making the same calculus - except that he seems to have chosen a side. Facebook is no longer pretending to care about preventing autocracy. They are betting on the GOP coup succeeding, and are building bridges accordingly.

Note: no amount of downvoting by the alt-right fringe lurking here will make the facts go away. Downvote away since you don’t have the courage to write down and justify your true beliefs. You are an embarrassment to the technology community. You are the spineless, petty, cowardly foundation upon which all autocracies are built.

replies(7): >>23354732 #>>23354800 #>>23355278 #>>23355411 #>>23355949 #>>23355968 #>>23359350 #
logicslave ◴[] No.23354732[source]
"they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office"

I think you are very far from reality

replies(6): >>23354827 #>>23354866 #>>23354932 #>>23354944 #>>23355258 #>>23355495 #
chasd00 ◴[] No.23354944[source]
very very far from reality. i heard the same thing from liberal friends about GWB and i heard the same thing from conservative friends about Obama.
replies(7): >>23355115 #>>23355185 #>>23355235 #>>23355456 #>>23355483 #>>23355595 #>>23355944 #
paiute ◴[] No.23355483[source]
During his 'The president has total power' gaffe he at one point said something along "I am president, the president isn't a person, but the office. I have the office now. Then the next guy will have the office..." You know, the kind of thing a dictator would say. Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.
replies(3): >>23355579 #>>23355662 #>>23355816 #
zapita[dead post] ◴[] No.23355662[source]
> Sometimes I feel like defending him due to people's over reactions when I wouldn't otherwise.

You feel the urge to defend someone whose actions are indefensible. Why is that? If I had to guess, I would say it's because you feel the urge to always be the contrarian. Whatever you feel the majority opinion is, there is an urge to go against it. This is probably because your feeling of self-worth is attached to the notion of being a contrarian. Going against the majority opinion makes you feel special, and in a way, it makes you feel superior. In my experience, it is a symptom of deeper issues - insecurity, fear of the unknown. The risk, if you don't address this issue, is that you will find yourself defending more and more extreme positions, and even seeking out more extreme positions to defend. This will cause social isolation, as people with more maintstream opinions such as "dangerous criminals should not be elected president" start avoiding you, and are replaced by other "contrarians".

1. thatguy0900 ◴[] No.23357773[source]
If I had to guess you're the kind of person who always thinks you're the smartest guy around. You know absolutely nothing about this person, just went on this rant against a strawman to feel intelligent.
replies(1): >>23358130 #
2. zapita ◴[] No.23358130[source]
Yes, that’s always a possibility. I try to check myself for this kind of behavior, and I don’t think that your description is accurate, but of course you never know for certain.