←back to thread

1061 points danso | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
montagg ◴[] No.23355495[source]
I'd love to live in this world, but it is not one I think anyone can afford to live in. This man is a true narcissist who has very little respect for the office, the institutions he's responsible for, or more than half the country. All sorts of things that were very far from reality are no longer.

But I would love to be able to agree with you. That would be a better world. But the world we live in is where the President says "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," a racist dog whistle to the 1960s, who "jokes" about staying past any term limits, where enablers in Congress and in the media allow him to toe the line of criminal behavior with no accountability as long as it benefits them. That's reality. I wish it were different, but I cannot take your position and reconcile it with what's in front of us today.

replies(3): >>23355758 #>>23356207 #>>23356761 #
dahdum ◴[] No.23355758[source]
Trump barely has support now, nothing close to the widespread popularity he’d need to refuse to leave office. There’s about a 0% chance the Supreme Court goes along with it, and without an election the Presidency automatically transfers.

He’d also have to be astoundingly popular among the Secret Service for them to betray their oaths. His military support would tank, and him, his family, and administration would be in constant fear for their lives. IMO, he’s just not that insane, stupid, or popular enough to even try.

replies(3): >>23355951 #>>23356022 #>>23356772 #
lazide ◴[] No.23355951[source]
Not going to weigh in more generally - but he seems to be doing pretty fine according to recent polls

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

replies(1): >>23356691 #
dahdum ◴[] No.23356691[source]
Well enough to pass some policy, but not enough to seize power through popularity. He’d undoubtedly lose significant (I’d wager most) Republican voters, and all semblance of a mandate.

The idea drives a lot of clicks and ad views though, so I’m sure we’ll see many more speculative articles before the election.

replies(1): >>23356704 #
jhpriestley ◴[] No.23356704[source]
I wonder if anyone in history has managed to seize authoritarian power with only 40% support. I vaguely remember an example in the 1930s in central europe somewhere.
replies(1): >>23356800 #
dahdum ◴[] No.23356800[source]
I appreciate your point but do you see an actual path for him to do so here? It’s a different form of government, in a different era, with a much more informed populace aware of those consequences.

Maduro did it in Venezuela recently, that’s actually a more apt comparison as he packed their Supreme Court to do so.

replies(2): >>23357427 #>>23361547 #
1. jhpriestley ◴[] No.23361547{7}[source]
My concern is that we may see the same dynamics as the reconstruction era. White liberals may lack the stomach for the kind of serious reform that would preserve democracy in the face of a white supremacist bloc gradually eroding voting rights and the rule of law. I wouldn't expect a Hitler-style dictatorship but we could see one-party rule.