
Twitter Deletes Tweet about Censorship on Twitter After Retweet by President - not_a_moth
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1261692841136287745
======
djohnston
There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a free
society other than education. America barely has that, and I don't see any
signs of this improving.

~~~
ScottFree
> There is no good solution to the disemination of harmful information in a
> free society other than education.

False. Maybe we should ban you from commenting on any of the popular platforms
to prevent you from spreading such blatantly harmful misinformation.

... you see how that happens? Party A with access and power doesn't want you
to say something, so you get banned. It has nothing to do with misinformation
or education.

~~~
djohnston
right but im saying that is NOT a good solution, not really a solution at all

------
tracer4201
The President's tweet: "The Radical Left is in total command & control of
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to
remedy this illegal situation."

I don't know of the radical left controlling Facebook, Instagram, etc., but
these are all private companies.

1\. Unless Congress enacts some legislation on who can or cannot say what on
these websites, what specific power does the Executive branch have?

2\. And if they do have the power, does this mean the next administration (if
liberal) could technically censure Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity for not
being "fair" (whatever that means)?

Edit: I'm genuinely curious why the downvotes. Looks like I'm getting censured
for asking a question that maybe isn't so convenient.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
>what specific power does the Executive branch have?

They could just go after any company that doesn't bow to them for something
like antitrust. Hell- make something up. Legal battles cost money and business
and Uncle Sam has basically limitless cash to use for this.

~~~
xtracto
Or Taxes? Weren't a lot of historical criminals indicted for tax crimes
instead of murder, kidnap or other things they committed?

------
unethical_ban
Further irony when HN flags a post about censorship describing a social
network censoring someone.

It's technical, it's political. I don't see the issue.

------
MrStonedOne
Let me just sum up the soon to be ensuing argument.

Side a: twitter is a private company, and has the legal right to ban or not
ban what ever they want for what ever reason they want.

Side b: but i'm a private person who can bitch or not bitch about twitter's
use of that right for what ever reason that i want.

...

Rinse

Repeat.

Profit.

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

------
Apreche
[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

------
unethical_ban
Is there a way to prove it was flagged or removed by Twitter?

This is the problem with censorship - the very nature of doing it enables the
complainers to be victim, even if you didn't actually do it!

Twitter should unabashedly _not_ delete anything unless it is a direct call to
violence or an imminent threat to public safety. If they do wish to curtail
misinformation, they should label it with their rationale.

"This video makes a series of factually incorrect statements" or "This video
is full of bullshit and lies and you're a fool for believing it" or something.
Clearly, there is a lot of misinformation/disinformation made to sow division,
and Michelle Malkin/the alt-right, Fox News "truthers" are as awful as they
come. But the very possibility that Twitter could or would remove a video, not
discuss it or list a reason why, is itself fuel for the alt-right's garbage.

There is no easy solution, no easy win against misinformation. I believe,
though, that light is usually better than dark with these people.

~~~
loopz
Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its
private property.

That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.

~~~
unethical_ban
I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right
to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right.

And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for
whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions
of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to
maintain cohesion and some respect for truth.

Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those
hazards.

Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any
answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her
ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to
the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the
liberal zeitgeist".

~~~
weare138
> _I 'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral_

Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a
free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't
see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party
involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of
morality in the situation on the other party?

> _And perhaps they shouldn 't have the right to delete whatever they want for
> whatever reason._

So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the
authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a
clear violation of the Constitution.

~~~
unethical_ban
The Constitution is an amendable law. Perhaps the mega-networks that are
defacto utilities should have clearer social contracts with our government.

