
It’s Time To Suspend Donald Trump From Twitter - potatosoup
https://medium.com/@ekp/dear-jack-its-time-to-suspend-donald-trump-from-twitter-14ddbdd3250c
======
jrnichols
"With these abusive messages, he incited others to attack and unleashed a
stream of hate, directly violating The Twitter Rules."

No he didn't. He expressed an opinion, but no, he didn't incite others to
attack anyone. Sorry, Ellen.

"Trump is also using Twitter to avoid accountability with the press"

Nobody needs to be accountable to the press, whether you like it or not.
That's not how the system works. He's allowed to tell his side of the story as
well if the press doesn't want to report it.

"Shouldn’t people with millions of angry followers be held to a higher
standard? Indeed, as a blue-check verified user, Trump gets extra privileges,
including timeline and user filters."

in that case, we have a lot of musicians that will also be held to higher
standards.

I also found it sort of interesting that they disabled comments on this
article. It's as if they want to do the same thing that they're accusing Trump
of doing - one way discourse.

------
omilu
>>>Trump used Twitter to criticize civil rights hero, Representative John
Lewis

John Lewis is a hero, but someone in his position calling the president
illegitimate is irresponsible and destructive. You can't ignore all the
horrific things trump says and does, but bottom line is he won the election.

~~~
spuz
With the controversy surrounding Trump's ties to Russia and possible hacking
activity by Russia during the election, I can understand why some people would
view Trump's presidency as illegitimate. Lewis happens to be one of those
people and was simply asked his opinion during an interview. It would be
surprising if know one had expressed the view that he did. Given that I don't
see how what he said could be controversial, irresponsible or destructive.

~~~
qznc
If you consider Trump illegitimate, you might be tempted to use force to
remove him from office. In the extreme case, someone psychologically instable
could feel morally obligated to assassinate Trump.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Someone may do that. That happens to every other president, legitimate or
otherwise. But the very idea that we quash criticism of an elected official,
simply because crazy people exist, is pretty much the opposite of a free
Republic.

~~~
omilu
It's perfectly fine to criticize trump. But to say he's illegitimate when
you're a high ranking, respected senator, with a huge audience is crossing the
line in my opinion. If Hillary won, and Paul Ryan said she was illegitimate
because the DNC cheated Bernie, and gave her answers to debate questions
etc... The public outrage directed at Ryan would be insane, he'd probably be
removed from office.

------
vonklaus
I find Ellen Pao to often be wrong and ineffectual due to external and
internal factors. Lauren Betchelder, referenced in Paos article, is an 18 year
old mature and accomplished individual. She had a strong biased against Trump
and when she said "you're no friend to women" she was probably not wrong, but
she shouldve realized she would face backlash. Random people ard brought into
the spotlight from being put into image macros-- much less than arguing with a
presedential candidate.

Ellen, you're not only wrong about censorship which shouldve been proven to
you-- but you're not making the right case. Trump potentially shouldn't have
Twitter. however, the internet isn't going to stop being offensive, nor is
Trump the only offensive person on the internet.

The most core tenet of America is freedom of belief. Like Henry, I think I
think Pao is wrong and what she says is horribly damaging because it
notmalizes censorship much as the "fake news/only trust _us_ " meme; BUT I
would spend my lifetime fighting for her right to say it.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
She wants her say, but she doesn't want Trump to have his say.

------
zigzigzag
Blind to her own hypocrisy it seems:

 _The idea of a platform for new ideas, open conversations, and positive
interactions on a global scale was powerful and compelling_

She praises new ideas and openness of conversation, then tells Twitter to ban
the US President because she disagrees with him.

 _The author has chosen not to show responses on this story_

What a surprise.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because you DO ban trolls from open conversations. There's nothing about the
lbotus' tweets that resemble 'positive interactions'. Though the global
repercussions are all too likely.

~~~
zigzigzag
By definition if you're banning people it's not an open conversation.

That's fine. Not all conversations have to be open. Twitter can go ahead and
eliminate their users who don't fit their preferred political profile, it's
their platform. Someone will just set up a competitor with different policies.

I suppose Trump's supporters would regard at least some of his interactions as
positive.

------
Clubber
It's amazing how flippant people are about other people's rights. Each major
party wants to erode them. It's best not to get to comfortable with either.

The author certainly wouldn't like it if his account was banned because
someone convinced a moderator his words were poison.

Take a step back.

~~~
potatosoup
*Her

~~~
Clubber
It's annoying that the English language doesn't have proper gender neutral
possessive pronouns. The same could be said for people who allow themselves to
be distracted by it.

~~~
potatosoup
Agreed, didn't mean to be picky. I put the name of the author in the title
originally (because context is useful), but the mods edited it out, too bad.

~~~
Clubber
No worries, I misinterpreted it. I think we derailed the original conversation
in this thread.

------
wyoh
> With these abusive messages, he incited others to attack and unleashed a
> stream of hate, directly violating The Twitter Rules.

The bar of what is considered « abusive » is becoming very, very low. It seems
the simple act of criticizing the public actions of an individual is enough
for one to become an « abuser ».

~~~
DefaultUserHN
They insult Trump, and when Trump insult them back, they get angry.

When will they learn: Don't insult Trump and Trump won't insult back. It's
that simple. If you're going to dish it out, you better be ready to receive it
too.

------
montyboy_us
Politics, period, has further turned the platform in to a cesspool. Removing a
single account is not going to correct that course. I guess this is just what
happens when a social or media outlet becomes mainstream. To illustrate, I'm
sure everyone has enjoyed a coffee shop, bar, or restaurant that later morphed
due to loss of niche crowds or mainstream success. Rather than trying rollback
time, best to try and accept it for what it is. If Twitter's reality does not
suit your preferences, move on. We don't own it.

------
jusq2
I say kick the politicians and media off twitter.

Both have more to gain than loose by pandering to the lowest common
denominator, and that's what they do consciously and subconsciously the whole
day.

~~~
grzm
I understand the motivation. However, how do you suggest this be accomplished?
Official accounts would be replaced by surrogates. And how do you distinguish
between individuals and surrogates or proxies?

~~~
jusq2
We have managed to keep spam out of inboxes haven't we? When is the last time
you saw something slip through?

There is 10 years of training data out there, which should cover everything
most politicians and journalists are ever capable of coming up with.

~~~
grzm
If that were to work reliably, wouldn't that also catch political expression
from individuals (as opposed to just politicians and journalists)? Or are you
targeting political speech in general? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the
end-goal is.

~~~
jusq2
Yes it would. I doubt too badly though. How often is actual mail getting
misidentified as spam?

Plus the quality of political expression imho on these platforms has gotten so
low in terms of signal to noise that I don't think it would be a great loss to
society.

The speed and reach of a message on social media today is unprecedented. Such
platforms need ways to retard the flow of ignorance. That would really be the
goal. And there is enough evidence to show that journalists and politicians
are benefiting the most from such flows.

