
Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence” - danso
https://twitter.com/bjoewolf/status/1266268435647852553
======
Animats
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions)

~~~
_ZeD_
following the wikipedia article I found

[https://www.avclub.com/twitter-releases-statement-
confirming...](https://www.avclub.com/twitter-releases-statement-confirming-
itll-never-ban-do-1818766712)

"Twitter releases statement confirming it'll never ban Donald Trump"

~~~
javajosh
Maybe. But there's probably a business model out there this is simply a
Twitter clone that waits for the Trump account to move there, and bang,
instant success.

~~~
Tenoke
There is and they (Gab) get an okay number of likes on every one of his posts
promoting it. [0] Also Facebook is now well positioned to be his next platform
if he moves off twitter.

0\.
[https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1266347307391488002](https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1266347307391488002)

~~~
hn_check
Trump isn't moving to Facebook, regardless of Zuck's attempt to pandering to
his childish outbursts. Twitter is precisely suited to Trump's micro-tantrum
thoughts, where Facebook is orthogonal. I would argue that the brevity of
Twitter, and the adversarial nature of it, _made_ Trump and the imbecile-right
(e.g. not conservative -- it's a bunch of flag wavers who have close to zero
political lean of knowledge...they just want to hate).

P.S. I know this comment is auto-dead, and that's _okay_.

~~~
bambataa
Out of all the social networks, isn't Facebook the one that has the most Trump
supporters? Twitter is notorious for being full of the woke left. Most people
only find out about Trump's tweets because they get reported somewhere.
Facebook is nowadays the preserve of older moms and pops.

------
tomp
This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for _all_ rules
violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets
people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which
should probably be banned.)

Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you
could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do
right now with NSFW content) - the default filter would be very "protective"
(no porn, no violence, no gore, no hate speech) but users could turn off any
or all of these "filters". The next step is the addition of user-curated
"lists" / "filters" (e.g. "no democrats", "no republicans", "no vegans", "no
dog lovers", ...).

~~~
throwawaysea
We can _hope_ Twitter adopts and enforces policies equally across the board,
but they won't and I don't think they can either.

As an example of how they _won 't_ do so, consider that there are people
literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter
right now, and they have not been banned or had their tweets/accounts hidden.
Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself, amplifying rioting
supported by Antifa and DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), as documented
in [https://thepostmillennial.com/ilhan-omars-daughter-shows-
sup...](https://thepostmillennial.com/ilhan-omars-daughter-shows-support-for-
antifa-group-organizing-riots-in-minneapolis). While hundreds of people are
inciting violence and using Twitter to organize violence in Minneapolis, the
company has done nothing to stop it, and yet they're willing to block Trump's
tweet on the theoretical enforcement of laws against criminal rioting? Clearly
this is a discriminatory bias in action.

As for how they _can 't_ do so: Twitter is a Silicon Valley company. It mostly
employs young, far left liberals. Its internal culture is heavily influenced
by where it is located and the people it employs. Their Hateful Conduct Policy
([https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-
condu...](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-
policy)) is also subject to that cultural/political influence. For instance,
this policy notes that "misgendering" is not allowed. But if you're on the
other side of the transgender debate, and feel that pronouns should be based
on biology-derived gender, and don't think trans women and biological women
should be lumped into a group, then you might be banned. Put another way,
Twitter has encoded political stances into their operating procedures, and
there's no escaping that even if they expressed a wish to treat their
customers equally across the board.

There are only two ways out. One option is that Twitter admits it is biased,
that they do discriminate against certain viewpoints, and that they do exert
editorial control over their platform. The other option is that they return to
viewpoint neutrality, avoid censorship/blocking, and only do so to the minimal
extent explicitly required by law.

~~~
LordDragonfang
>people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on
Twitter right now

>Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself

Apparently, retweeting a list of supplies to help protect yourself from bodily
harm from violent police is "literally organizing violent riots and
destruction of property"

~~~
throwawaysea
I get what you're saying, but the flip side of it is that such actions are
aiding, enabling, and abetting a crime (in this case, a large number of
crimes). The "protect yourself from bodily harm" bit is what enables these
rioters to avoid dispersing and ceasing violent destruction of property. And
it is obvious from numerous tweets from various DSA and antifa handles that
these two groups are very much amplifying and glorifying destructive rioting.
This is real material violence, not theoretical violence, and therefore
Twitter needs to shut it down if they have a problem with theoretical violence
that they think Trump's tweet glorifies.

Calling police "violent" for wanting to stop blatant opportunistic theft and
terrorist behavior (e.g. deliberately cutting gas lines to create big
explosions) is a stretch. I would call the initial policing incident that
tipped off the protests violent, and I would call the destructive rioting
violent (as opposed to the initial peaceful protesting). Both acts deserve
condemnation and consequences in my view.

------
lykahb
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial
providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law
rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as
newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published.

By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with
progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and
is bound to create such controversies.

~~~
QuercusMax
Fact-checking obvious lies is a "progressive value"? Wow, that really shows
how bad things have gotten.

~~~
pnako
If the lies are obvious, why do they need "fact checking"?

~~~
sethhochberg
Because, for better or worse, the sources of truth that normal people
historically relied on for their barometer of what is true or not have been
democratized by the internet.

We live in a world where a substantial number of people believe the earth is
flat, that 5G cellular is a mind control scheme, that vaccines cause autism,
that COVID-19 was created by a political party, that the concept of climate
change is manufactured, or that major national crises are actually just actors
being paid to further a political narrative.

Most of these ideas aren't new, but in decades past you might have heard about
them from a conspiracy-therorist neighbor, a low profile website, or an
alternative magazine with little reputation of its own.

Now, these ideas are spread on the exact same platforms as objectively
truthful / scientifically sound media. Your Youtube conspiracy theory channel
is right next to the BBC's videos. Your viral Facebook post could be from the
New York Times, or it might be from a propaganda organization - or worse, an
account that looks like a normal person but which was specifically created to
spread misinformation that seems plausibly truthful.

Credibility is distributed and anyone can publish to a huge audience, which is
wonderful sometimes, and othertimes deeply problematic, because the viewer
often doesn't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction and can't trust the
publisher at face value anymore.

Its uncharted territory. The cost to distribute is zero, and ideas spread far
and wide - but that means that there are equally as many incredible sources on
any given topic as credible ones, and telling the difference is hard, and
sometimes not knowing the difference is dangerous. Dunning-Kruger writ large.

~~~
mkolodny
I agree.

The question is, if it's hard to figure out who you can trust, then who can
you trust to decide what's fact and what's fiction?

I think trusting any one person or organization to decide is dangerous.
Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter.

I'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are
the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to
either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion.

~~~
matwood
_Everyone has biases, including the people making decisions at Twitter._

Sure, but many things being discussed are beyond biases at this point. POTUS
tweets and says completely false things every single day. This isn't
downplaying things he disagrees with or spinning, it's flat out lying and/or
denying they even exist.

There was a long thread here on HN about HCQ, and some were asking for proof
that HCQ does _not_ work. No, that is completely the opposite of how science,
and drug research in particularly, works. Drugs are considered non-working
until proven otherwise and never the other way around.

 _I 'd prefer to see the arguments for both sides clearly laid out - "Here are
the arguments for and against". Ideally anyone would be able to contribute to
either side. Maybe giving each argument its own HN-style discussion._

I understand what you're saying, but I shouldn't have to prove 1+1=2 every
time I want to have a discussion. Let's take vaccines for example. They have
been proven safe and effective many times over. They do not cause autism. In
this case, what is the other side of the argument? On my side it's tons of
peer reviewed research and on the other it's a few quacks with
falsified/misinterpreted/unreplicable/bad science. What is there to actually
argue? This is where I normally get frustrated because there are so many
topics that can be vigorously argued in good faith, but if we can't agree to
some basic 'this is how the scientific method works' then what's the point.

~~~
jungletime
I support vaccination because on aggregate they're best bang for buck in
medicine that we have.

The most compelling argument I heard from detractors is that a) Vaccines have
been tested/developed on people in Africa who were not told of the dangers of
experimental treatments

b)Some vaccines contain trace amounts of metals like mercury.

Both a and b are True. In what way is the person that holds such views
unscientific.

When I was child, I was literally vaccinated with a re-used needle. I'm pretty
sure I'm not the only one.

I don't understand why you can act like vaccines have never hurt anyone ever,
and claim it as the scientific view. To me this seems equally as absurd.

~~~
matwood
> a) Vaccines have been tested/developed on people in Africa who were not told
> of the dangers of experimental treatments

Running medical trials on unsuspecting people is wrong whether it's a new drug
or vaccine. It also has little to do with the well proven safety vaccines.

> b)Some vaccines contain trace amounts of metals like mercury.

Ah, the classic anti-vax 'toxins' argument. I said that vaccines have been
proven safe time and again (which they have). I never said they don't have
trace amounts of stuff often found in much larger amounts all around us in the
environment [1].

> When I was child, I was literally vaccinated with a re-used needle. I'm
> pretty sure I'm not the only one.

There was a time in not so long ago medical history that things like needles
were reused. It wasn't specific to vaccines.

> I don't understand why you can act like vaccines have never hurt anyone
> ever, and claim it as the scientific view

Talk about moving/making up goal posts. Nowhere did I claim that no one was
ever hurt in the history of figuring out how vaccines work. What I claimed is
that vaccines today have been proven safe over and over again. They also do
not cause autism.

[1] [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-
vaccines/](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/)

------
082349872349872
One can also check easily-discoverable recent US military policy
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453)
to discover that those who think these things through don't condone "looting ⊃
shooting".

Bonaparte was a fan of the "whiff of grape"
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_v...](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_vendémiaire_an_IV#/media/Fichier:Bonaparte_13_vendémiaire_Saint_Roch.jpg)
but we all know how that ended.

~~~
meheleventyone
Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in
warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their
fellow citizens by police back home?

~~~
dmoy
Yes

One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as
much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is
explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which _really_ messes
you up.

There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of
things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

~~~
nowandlater
Correct, hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. This
has always baffled me since large caliber and high explosive munitions (120mm
HEAT rounds from an Abrams) are regularly used against soft targets in combat,
not to mention things like hellfire missles or JDAMs. That's the rules of war
for you.

~~~
arminiusreturns
It's mostly because this isn't true, though lots of people love to wax on
about what they think is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. I've heard all
kinds of stuff like this over the years, such as "you can't fire a 50 cal at a
human" etc.

The Geneva Convention says nothing in particular about hollowpoints, so the
verbiage has an "interpretation" by DoD about the Rules of Land Warfare that
skirts around the issue . See [https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-
manual-return...](https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-
returns-hollow-point-bullets-armed-conflict/)

I know this because I carried hollowpoints while deployed in an anti-terrorism
capacity.

~~~
dmoy
hollowpoint restrictions date back to the 19th century (hague convention), not
the geneva convention. And yes that is addressing international war.

It explicitly prohibits frangible/flattening/expanding ammo in war. The US
hasn't signed that, but in practice they adhere to that part of it (but yes
exactly as you point out, only for "war" not "anti-terrorism")

------
andrethegiant
I can't tell who needs who more in this symbiotic relationship.

~~~
ece
And here I was thinking the same thing about Facebook and Republicans.

------
knowaveragejoe
Good, and frankly they should have been doing this sort of thing sooner.

~~~
osobo
I'm guessing they had been holding back until the campaigning season started.
Now they get maximum impact.

~~~
klyrs
His feed has been getting worse recently, and the publicity of his misbehavior
has been escalating. Maybe he's acting out more because it's an election year.
Bit of a chicken/egg issue that I wouldn't want to get stuck defending either
side.

But the fact of the matter is that the Citizens United ruling grants private
corporations the right to free speech. He can continue to use Twitter, but
they've literally got the right to campaign against him, editorialize,
shadowban, or straight up ban him. He could choose to follow the site's rules,
or run off to Gab. But he's doing it for attention and his tantrums and
Twitter's non-enforcement actions are getting him a lot of that.

~~~
tathougies
Citizens united foes not grant private corporations anything. Their freedom to
say what they like was determined to already have existed. Citizens united
just stops lower courts from enforcing any law that violates this freedom.

The government does not grant rights

------
MarkLowenstein
I'd like to see a system like this: if your tweet is blocked for a reason, all
you have to do is find a tweet that's worse than it is for that same reason,
that is not already blocked. If the moderators agree then yours is unblocked
and the other's is. Maybe disputes with the moderators' decision can be
public, so people can see which way the wind blows with the particular social
media platform.

Lots of people here will propose ways of gaming this system, such as setting
up fake accounts where they make worse tweets. I don't want to pre-argue with
them by making this post really long though. I think that starting with this
design it's probably possible to tweak it to encourage honesty.

~~~
BurritoAlPastor
Leaving aside the logistical and gamification reasons why this would be a bad
idea – you’d also be creating an incentive structure for people espousing
marginally offensive content to actively seek out and engage with more extreme
positions? It would result in radicalization, not moderation, even if it
worked as intended.

------
partiallypro
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.

~~~
phailhaus
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.

~~~
formalsystem
[https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712](https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712)

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

~~~
augustt
Damaging property is not violence.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
It literally is part of the definition [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/violence](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/violence)

~~~
adrianmonk
In this case, doesn't Twitter's definition of violence matter more than the
dictionary's definition? Here it is:

> _Glorification of violence policy_

...

> _You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people.
> We also prohibit the glorification of violence._

([https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-
policies/glorification...](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-
policies/glorification-of-violence))

~~~
Simulacra
What if a person said it as opinion: Looting has the potential to initiate
shootings. Are we looking at an opinion, an observation, or glorying violence.

~~~
joshuamorton
If I said that, it's an observation. If the chief of police said that, it's an
implied threat. This is because I don't have the power to initiate shootings,
while the chief of police does. There is a power differential, and statements
can be viewed in the context of the person making them.

This is why phrases like "we should nuke them from orbit", which might be
calls to violence if made by a head of state, are generally seen as satire,
because there's no chance of me actually nuking someone from orbit. Context
matters.

------
disease
For everyone bashing Twitter's actions, including the President, why don't
they just leave the platform for Gab or something else?

~~~
coopsmgoops
I don't quite understand the "if you don't like it leave" theory. Is it really
so unreasonable for people to want to influence the way the established
platform works rather than switch and be alone on a new platform. Nobody is
going to bother coming with you to Gab.

~~~
KyleJune
You could make a similar argument about selling on Amazon. They have rules
that you must obey if you want to sell products on their marketplace. If they
were not allowed to moderate the content and curate it, then the amazon
marketplace would be less appealing to customers and sellers.

Twitter should be able to moderate and curate it's content to protect their
brand image. If they don't challenge lies on their platform and remove toxic
content, Twitter will become less attractive platform for both individuals and
advertisers.

------
danso
Link to @realDonaldTrump tweet:
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12662311007807447...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704)

tweet text:

> _....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let
> that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military
> is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when
> the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!_

Disclaimer text:

> _This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However,
> Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet
> to remain accessible. Learn more_

"Learn more" links to this page about "public-interest exceptions"

[https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-
intere...](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest)

edit: here's the official thread from @TwitterComms about it:
[https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345](https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345)

~~~
noobermin
Why is this reply being downvoted? It is merely informative.

~~~
all2
It shows the actual words, which are hard to spin. If we keep what was done
vague, we can spin it any way we please.

~~~
koheripbal
That's interesting. I interpreted it the exact opposite way. That looking at
the words - they don't seem so bad, so the liberal-minded HN users downvoted
to keep the details away.

Funny how personal bias can twist perceptions.

~~~
all2
I think you and I are thinking the same thing: if the source is available,
then the reader can form their own opinion.

------
darepublic
As someone of mixed ethnicity who, if I was there could easily be victimized
by a senseless mob to whom I owe nothing and have committed no crime against..
yea I am not happy with how the mainstream media promotes and covers this
story, downplaying the victims of the chaos and sympathizing with outpourings
of anger even if illegal. To clarify, looters should not be shot, law should
prevail, and the policeman involved in the original incident should be
investigated.. but the mainstream media is to my mind basically behind the
looters, and I know if by chance I or someone like me were to be caught in the
crossfire and killed, the mainstream media, posturing as champions of justice,
would just implicitly shrug. So yea I can't help but feel disaffected by this
coverage, no matter how vile the originating incident.

~~~
fzeroracer
This entire event is effectively self-defense from a community that has felt
terrorized by the police for decades.

It could've been easily prevented by actually arresting someone that committed
abject murder, but the city and the police chose to instead defend a man who
has killed multiple people in the past and got away with it scott-free. So
when people feel like justice no longer exists, there should be no surprise
that they get angry.

It doesn't help that the police also employ agent provocateurs whom help
incite riots and looting so that they can use more violent tactics with glee.

~~~
philwelch
Looting private businesses and setting fires isn’t “self-defense”.

~~~
baby
An organism that is attacked can self defend in impredictible ways, there will
be collaterals.

~~~
efraim
That still doesn't make looting self-defense.

~~~
baby
If you see the community, or the people, as a single organism. Then yes it is
reacting in harmful way to an attack. And it is hard to control where the harm
is directed.

~~~
philwelch
You’re talking about human beings who are responsible for their own actions.

~~~
baby
And yet people generalize the action of a few to the whole protest.

~~~
philwelch
Yes, especially when they say things like, "If you see the community, or the
people, as a single organism..."

~~~
baby
it's like you're actively trying not to understand my comment?

~~~
philwelch
Not at all. If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t
make sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective
“organism”. It’s like you switched sides and started arguing my point in the
middle of the argument.

~~~
baby
> If looting and vandalism is “the action of a few”, then it doesn’t make
> sense to characterize it as “self-defense” on behalf of some collective
> “organism”.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, opportunists don't exist without a
crowd.

------
illuminated
I know it is "never too late" for things like this to happen, but it's
definitely late.

One of the main reasons for bad things to happen is the lack of education
(which, in turn, leads to resist to change) and, therefore makes people prone
to believe to unbelievable things.

Social platforms like Twitter should have long had things like "fact checking"
ANY statements and should have restricting not only violence glorifying posts,
but also the ones with racial or sexual discrimination and all the others .

It is late, but I like seeing it happen at least for the person with the most
"glorifying" record in dividing a society.

~~~
wpietri
Yeah, the whole reason we have public education is that democracy requires a
knowledgeable voter base. When social media companies were just starting out,
I get why they weren't fretting about societal effects. But even if we go by
business metrics, a collapse of democracy would probably be bad for their
businesses. It's past time for social media companies to take responsibility
for their negative externalities. And that definitely includes all sort of
"negative information value" content.

~~~
illuminated
Yeah, there's a difference between educated and knowledgeable. But I don;t
agree on the reason of existence of the public education system - its not
about the voter base, it's about improving not only yourself, but the society
as well (as improving society secures in a way improvement of you and your
offspring).

I don't find social media companies responsible for the user generated
content, but I do find them responsible for making it damn too easy to spread
fear and then doing nothing about it. Or, as in case of some, promoting the
division.

~~~
wpietri
That's a good reason to have public education, of course. But it's a nice-to-
have. Democracy cannot function without educated voters.

Agreed for sure on the second point. They turned everybody into publishers
with global reach and still haven't really thought about what previous
publishers did to make sure that power was used responsibly.

------
quietthrow
Once again! Bravo Jack and the Twitter team! Thank you taking a stand against
bullying.

~~~
devtul
Is the POTUS clearly inciting violence or is it another instance of people
having a wild interpretation of what he said? I'm so tired of this dynamic
that I don't even bother anymore.

~~~
myvoiceismypass
The guy who openly called for police to rough people up in the past does not
get the benefit of the doubt here.

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/28/donald-
trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/28/donald-trump-police-
long-island-speech)

~~~
busymom0
You do know that he was talking about MS13 gang members who had murdered
people. People need to stop reading media spins and watch actual full un-
edited footage.

EDIT: Oh look, downvote brigade has arrived.

------
logicallee
For anyone who doesn't want to click, Twitter quarantined (you can click
"view" to see it, however engagement is disabled) a Presidential tweet in
which he calls on a mayor to "get a city under control", threatened to send in
the national guard, said the military is behind the governor, and said that if
there is difficulty they will assume control. His specific reference to
violence occurred at the end the tweet, which he ended saying "Any difficulty,
and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.
Thank you!"

------
satysin
This is very interesting to watch unfold in real-time.

I find it fascinating the President of the United States is ranting about 1st
Amendment violations with regards to a private business. Pretty sure there is
nothing in the 1st Amendment that says he is guaranteed the right to tweet.

I hope Twitter takes this a step further the next time he violates their ToS
and gives his account a 48 hour suspension.

I understand why Trump is picking this fight but I can't help but feel Twitter
hold the power. Sure Trump has been a big driving factor in Twitter really
hitting mainstream but I would be surprised if he was still adding huge value
to the platform. If anything banning Trump would be the biggest thing to ever
happen to Twitter as he wouldn't let it go.

However I can't see a way for Trump to win such a fight. It could go all the
way to the SCOTUS but if they sided against Twitter it would affect literally
every big social media platform in the US which I can't see happening.

Zooming all the way out I don't see why Twitter really care about such a fight
as there is no way Google and Facebook (to name just two) would let things go
against Twitter as it would be devastating to them as well.

~~~
KKPMW
With free speech it gets interesting how you interpret it. One interpretation,
which I think Trump is using, is that "laws come last". There is a principle
that says free speech should be protected and laws only come to cover the
cases where the principle can be infringed. So twitter, in this
interpretation, would be correct according to current law, but would stand on
the wrong side with regards to a higher value of upholding the principle.

However there is another interpretation which says that ability to remove
someone from your private business is also an expression of free speech. And
that private companies as well as individuals are free to choose who they do
business with. But there is one nuance here - this is better served under
another principle which is "freedom of association". Freedom of association
states that you can refuse to deal with anyone you don't like. However in USA
this principle recently lost its value after certain group of Christians were
not allowed to refuse baking a cake for a gay couple. So it seems there are
certain protections.

But then there is a third thing which is that in some countries (and I am not
sure here about USA) the president has the right to send a message using any
media channel he sees fit, and the media channel cannot refuse. Informing and
communicating with the public is one of president's duties and refusing to
send his message infringes upon it. If USA has such a law and if Twitter could
be interpreted as a media platform then it could be against the law for
Twitter to do what it is currently doing. Unlikely thou, as twitter has a team
of lawers and likely they were consulted beforehand.

> Zooming all the way out I don't see why Twitter really care about such a
> fight

Companies are ran by people and those people take political sides. Twitter is
on the democratic party side, and the election season is coming. I predict we
will se a bigger coordinated effort spanning Google, Youtube, and Twitter, and
some other big corporations as we get closer to USA president election date.

~~~
satysin
Thank you for your insights.

> But then there is a third thing which is that in some countries (and I am
> not sure here about USA) the president has the right to send a message using
> any media channel he sees fit, and the media channel cannot refuse.
> Informing and communicating with the public is one of president's duties and
> refusing to send his message infringes upon it. If USA has such a law and if
> Twitter could be interpreted as a media platform then it could be against
> the law for Twitter to do what it is currently doing. Unlikely thou, as
> twitter has a team of lawers and likely they were consulted beforehand.

I looked into what powers the President of the US has in regards to sending a
message and from what I found there are only specific rules (not sure if they
are laws) for TV and radio to broadcast Presidential messages unaltered when
asked.

Even if one was to interpret those rules to include the internet as well
surely that would fall onto ISPs in that they must give unrestricted access to
government services such as whitehose.gov rather than giving the President
unlimited power of literally _any_ US-based website?

I am sure if Twitter bans Trump's account he would push forward that he has
unlimited power to communicate via any website he pleases although I have no
idea how that would play out in the courts. It certainly goes against the
small government position the Republican party talk about for businesses.

> Companies are ran by people and those people take political sides. Twitter
> is on the democratic party side, and the election season is coming. I
> predict we will se a bigger coordinated effort spanning Google, Youtube, and
> Twitter, and some other big corporations as we get closer to USA president
> election date.

I also think this. Seems Facebook has picked their side with Trump.

Me thinks Twitter has been planning for this outcome for a while now which is
why they have held off on banning his account. I wouldn't be surprised if they
take the step to ban him sometime in the not too distant future.

------
darkerside
As President, or any public figure, you are responsible not only for the
intention of your words, but also every feasible interpretation of your words,
as well as the impacts of your words, regardless of intention.

I say this not to imply that Trump didn't know that this statement could be
taken in multiple ways, but to remind people that even if it can it doesn't
matter. It's tragic this has happened, and also tragic to have a leader who
reacts to the situation in this way, and that a large swath of the country
applauds him for it.

Vague and menacing threats are much more thuggish behavior than emotional
reaction to the killing of an unarmed civilian.

As for what Twitter is doing, I'm curious whether they follow this path to
it's logical conclusion, which is, eventually Trump being banned from Twitter.
He's a huge driver of traffic for them, but perhaps they're thinking about
life after Trump at this point, months away from the election.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Vague and menacing threats are admittedly thuggish behavior, but I think it's
hard to argue that it's _more_ thuggish than burning down a police station.

~~~
AshleyGrant
Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on
purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know
exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with
the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any
more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles.

What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person in that mob is a
"thug," and everything they're doing is (in your words) "thuggish."

But the mob of white folks in Charlottesville? Nothing thuggish there. That's
just white folks protesting against being oppressed by minorities.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I would call any group of people who burns down a police station, or breaks
into a Target and starts stealing stuff, thuggish. The mob of white folks in
Charlottesville did not, as far as I know, do these things.

~~~
AshleyGrant
Yeah, they only murdered a black person. That's not nearly as bad as burning a
building.

/s for those who can't see that I'm responding to someone who has been
trolling this thread hard

~~~
darkerside
I think this person is actually not a troll, just has some ideas that are
maybe not fully thought through. I see evidence of an open mind by the poster
elsewhere on the thread. Let's try to have patience with other people.

------
AgentME
One angle I don't see discussed: I wonder if Trump commits to more
risky/bombastic/divisive plans as president because he feels confident that he
can directly frame them and control the narrative by using his audience on
Twitter, and he feels emboldened by how immediately Twitter is able to deliver
the reactions. If there's a chance this is true, I can especially understand
Twitter wanting to have no part in this. It would be fucked up to force anyone
like Twitter to be the ones working to support this if they didn't want to be
the ones doing it and associated with it.

~~~
dannyw
Twitter should have suspended the account of a repeated rule breaker a long
time ago.

If I threatened to shoot the president, I would be in jail already, not to
mention my twitter account would be suspended.

~~~
areyousure
[https://twitter.com/search?q=%22shoot%20trump%22&src=typed_q...](https://twitter.com/search?q=%22shoot%20trump%22&src=typed_query&f=live)

[https://twitter.com/swoIIens/status/1266247882652278785](https://twitter.com/swoIIens/status/1266247882652278785)
[https://twitter.com/uwork4me247/status/1265065191311638529](https://twitter.com/uwork4me247/status/1265065191311638529)
[https://twitter.com/SweeetTeeeaaa/status/1263924178048241665](https://twitter.com/SweeetTeeeaaa/status/1263924178048241665)
[https://youtu.be/E4i3bAtEuJE?t=184](https://youtu.be/E4i3bAtEuJE?t=184)

~~~
ViViDboarder
The first direct link you posted is a RT if someone saying that their friend
was arrested for exactly this.
[https://twitter.com/swoIIens/status/1266247882652278785](https://twitter.com/swoIIens/status/1266247882652278785)

It sounds like you’re confirming OPs point, not refuting it.

------
pfkurtz
Seems like there's a whole lotta fascists on this internet.

~~~
koheripbal
...where "fascist" is defined as: "anyone who disagrees with me".

~~~
pfkurtz
Nope. Where it's defined as people enacting or cheering right wing
authoritarian destruction of democratic society.

Like the supporters of Donald Trump.

~~~
koheripbal
Feel free to keep putting those goal posts wherever you feel like today.

~~~
pfkurtz
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. But that's what fascism is
— right wing authoritarianism built around a leader cult merging racist
populists with a corporate elite, directing state violence at
marginalized/demonized groups. Which is what Trumpism is.

~~~
groundpepper
There's a political illiteracy in our politics (I'm including Canada, but more
prevalent in the US it seems) that says fascism is hitler himself and the
swastika and nothing else.

~~~
albedoa
Which makes their confidence in their literacy so bizarre. koheripbal's
reaction to the uncontroversial observation is to first convince himself that
it must be wrong and then project a specific and fantastical reason to explain
why we have observed it. He really thinks he has figured something out.

------
ssorc3
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like
Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice
about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated.
Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies
want to be both publishers and platforms.

For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you
say when on the phone, using their network.

CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on
their website, and can get sued accordingly.

Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their website, but
also not be held responsible for anything that is posted on their website.
They want the perks of being a publisher, and the perks of being a platform.

Obviously there are arguments made on both sides. But that is the general
disagreement, if I understand correctly.

~~~
dlp211
> CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on
> their website, and can get sued accordingly.

This isn't true though. CNN/NYTimes/etc can't be sued for 3rd party comments
on their site. CNN is also allowed to filter what comments make it on their
site. These are not opposing ideas.

~~~
dpoochieni
They already don't allow commenting on most articles. Makes you wonder what
they are afraid of...

~~~
blueboo
The briefest investigation of the comments sections of local news sites
explains what they're not only afraid of, but perfectly rationally expecting
amd shrewdly avoiding.

~~~
dpoochieni
I don't follow much local news this days, can you share an example?

I grew up reading the NYTimes online and thought that the discussion section
offered great debate. I think it might have become a case of it is too
expensive to moderate? Do people just post ads and spam? Because in my mind,
active discussion is always good

------
hyko
"For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law
ought to be king"

------
shiado
The service that hosts the accounts of all branches of the US military, all
major weapons contractors, all three letter agencies, and many foreign
militaries, governments, and world leaders guilty of all manner of war crimes,
and this is where they draw the line for violence. Really interesting.

~~~
crazygringo
Well, in political science and sociology, one of the most common definitions
of the state is that it possesses a monopoly on legitimate/lawful violence.

Violence conducted via the military or police, _according to regulation_ , is
lawful.

But violence conducted by citizens, _or_ by members of the government or
military that is _not_ according to law/regulation, is _not_ lawful.

I'm not saying Twitter's drawing the line _exactly_ right, but it's somewhere
in the right vicinity.

~~~
lostmsu
Wasn't Trump referring to stand your ground laws?

~~~
sangnoir
Minnesota does _not_ have stand your ground laws. Instead, they have duty to
retreat laws (basically, you can use deadly force to protect your life, not
property).

~~~
Avicebron
And if a looter is threatening your life?

~~~
sangnoir
Refer to sentence in parentheses.

------
jungletime
You can make the case that humans often engage in threats to prevent violence.

Having seen a few people threaten each other, and not get into a physical
fight. But to walk way. I would say it can be preferable to actual fists
thrown. Words are not violence.

------
user982
'Trump's phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is an
unattributed quote of Walter Headley, Miami's police chief in 1967. It was a
threat to citizens who were upset that police had terrorized a black teenager
by holding him over a bridge.'
([https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1266246092393336838](https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1266246092393336838))

~~~
kortilla
An unattributed quote?

~~~
logicallee
The OP means that Trump didn't use quotation marks or mention that it was a
quotation. (I myself didn't realize it was a quotation.) There is no
attribution or quotation marks in the tweet.

I found the attribution of the quote very informative and am very surprised it
is currently downvoted. My own summary of the tweets is also downvoted, not
sure what I could/should add to it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347395)

I tried to neutrally summarize the tweets, in case people wanted to know what
they said without clicking.

------
tracer4201
100K people dead and this guys priorities are Twitter and coming up with ways
to throw more fuel on a dumpster fire of race relations and police brutality.
Bravo.

~~~
totalZero
It totally fits his history of drawing the public's attention away from the
most unflattering things that he has done.

------
andrenth
“ ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let
that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is
with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the
looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

Which part of that tweet glorifies violence?

------
amgreg
I’m curious to understand HN’s algo: Why has this thread, with over 1299
comments, decayed so quickly to the bottom of the 2nd page?

~~~
dependenttypes
more upvotes -> higher

more time passed, more comments -> lower

~~~
amgreg
So comments actually work against it?

------
softwaredoug
One thing that's fascinating about this is how Twitter has become so centered
around political discussion (& histrionics). It's become the backbone of the
sort of inside-baseball of politics. The lightning rod at the center of both
politics and Twitter is Trump. Trump is such a powerful force because he can
bend the ridiculousness of the twitter conversation to his will. He's perhaps
an outcome of all the incentives of the social network.

So limiting Trump is to me a kind of commentary on Twitter itself. Maybe
something like a Trump is the end-game of a Twitter-like network?

------
buboard
Is there recent research on the effects of political polarization on the
mental health and sanity of americans?

------
creaghpatr
The White House twitter account has issued a response:
[https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266367168603721728?s=...](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266367168603721728?s=20)

This* Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However,
@Twitter has determined that it will allow terrorists, dictators, and foreign
propagandists to abuse its platform.

*Referring to an attached picture of a Khamenei tweet about Palestine

~~~
gowld
That's amazing. Of all the horrific thing people post to Twitter all day long,
a vague statement about Palestinian independence is the "best" whataboutist
comparison Trump could find to match his own threat to open fire on the
country he is sworn to defend.

~~~
kyleblarson
How about this?
[https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1265440342892929025?...](https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1265440342892929025?lang=en)

~~~
belltaco
>Kathleen Mary Griffin is an _American comedian_ and actor who has starred in
television comedy specials and has released comedy albums.

------
factually
I am so, so tired of everyone apply "conservative" to outright nonsense. We
should say "republican" or "trumpian" instead.

There is nothing conservative in many of the far-right ideas, by any
definition of the word. If the idea or opinion is:

1) Based on pure hate

2) Based on treating a protected class badly - you know, the whole reason we
have class protections

3) Based on NOTHING AT ALL, no facts given, other than sometimes a turtles-
all-the-way-down derivation of other crazy opinions, and sometimes with a
"make it true" initiative bringing up the rear. Speculation is not a position.
Speculation is not a position. SPECULATION IS NOT A POSITION!

those are NOT Conservative. Those are crazy. Especially #3, employed all the
time by the current POTUS.

I personally believe the Conservative movement has actually been wildly
successful over the last several decades, and the country has shifted
significantly to the right.

Now, all that remains is the crazy. That is all the right has to differentiate
itself, and they're going all in.

Anyway, TLDR: crazy is not Conservative, please use Trumpian or Republican if
that fits. Also, speculation is not a position :)

------
fareesh
Amusingly it looks like Twitter's report system contradicts the hiding by
saying there's nothing wrong with the tweet:

[https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435)

President Trump has also clarified his remarks, which is a welcome move.

~~~
ViViDboarder
If I’m reading that correctly, it’s a completely misleading assertion by
@WhiteHouse. It appears as though this is in response to the quote of the
original that was also reported. Given that the quote is adding a comment on
to the original text, their ruling makes sense to me.

That said, it looks like they’ve hidden it as well now. So maybe they see it
as an attempt to circumvent the TOS and are treating it the same way.

~~~
fareesh
A plain non-technical reading of the email from Twitter doesn't describe the
structure you're suggesting - so it's possible that Twitter's email template
is not properly rendering the structure of the tweets.

------
nateburke
This seems like an escalation. How would both sides continuing to escalate
play out?

Trump would probably get banned at some point, especially if his tweets start
to endanger rank-and-file Twitter employees (inspiring death threats, etc.).
How likely is he to get injunctive relief if he gets banned?

I don't think Trump has thought this conflict through completely.

~~~
koheripbal
Given that this is an election year, I imagine that he is absolutely going to
intentionally try to get himself banned - then spin the whole "liberal-bias-
censorship" card.

...and it might work. These sorts of stories play riiiight to the
centrist/libertarian/independents - whom he's grooming to not be afraid of
showing up in person to the election booth in November.

------
illuminated
I wrote this on the duplicate topic here, copying as I believe it matters:

I know it is "never too late" for things like this to happen, but it's
definitely late.

One of the main reasons for bad things to happen is the lack of education
(which, in turn, leads to resist to change) and, therefore makes people prone
to believe to unbelievable things.

Social platforms like Twitter should have long had things like "fact checking"
ANY statements and should have restricting not only violence glorifying posts,
but also the ones with racial or sexual discrimination and all the others .

It is late, but I like seeing it happen at least for the person with the most
"glorifying" record in dividing a society.

------
dmode
There is more outrage in this thread about some Twitter policy than the dead
black man and the racist president inciting violence on Americans.

------
threatofrain
> Trump is intentionally or inadvertently quoting former Miami Police Chief
> Walter Headley. In December 1967, months before riots broke out during the
> (Nixon) Republican National Convention, Headley said “when the looting
> starts, the shooting starts” at the announcement of a new “get tough” policy
> for policing black neighborhoods. Headley promised to use shotguns, dogs,
> and aggressive “stop and frisk” tactics in a bid to reduce crime. “We don’t
> mind being accused of police brutality,” the New York Times reported him
> saying at the time. “They haven’t seen anything yet.”

------
linkmotif
Yet somehow Ayatollah Khomeini tweets for the Nth time that Israel must be
eliminated (verbatim):
[https://twitter.com/Khamenei_tv/status/1264541220006739968](https://twitter.com/Khamenei_tv/status/1264541220006739968).

How do you go about "eliminating" a country and its inhabitants without
killing them all?

How can Twitter apply these rules inconsistently and be taken seriously?

------
ausjke
so now twitter decides what is right or wrong? let's shot down this little
evil bird.

the media is so biased these days, their job really should be fair and balance
and they totally failed, either too left or two right.

social media polarized people more than anything we have seen in history,
thanks to facebook, twitter, and google to some extent

------
dmix
Promoting violence should have always been the red line. This is very
different than regulating 'facts'.

------
woeirua
Twitter should maliciously comply with Trump's executive order. Suspend his
account, and post a banner saying that it was suspended in compliance with
President Trump's Executive Order.

------
ikeyany
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not
cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?"

The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military
to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.

~~~
umvi
> The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military
> to shoot American citizens for looting

That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would
interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because
I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely
threatening, yet catchy rhyme.

~~~
chooseaname
> The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when
> he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to
> a United Press International article from the time.

> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law
> enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken
> advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of
> police brutality."

This is where the quote comes from.

[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-
phrase-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-
looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676)

Edit:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-
rac...](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-race-riot-
tweet-2020-5)

> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that
> Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in
> sparking the riots.

> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted
> his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.

Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he
wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE
IS.

~~~
tunesmith
The President keeps surprising me. Like, I keep thinking I have an accurate
mental model of him being generally hateful and clueless and instinctive, but
then things like this happen and underscore to me that he is _deeply_
knowledgeable and sophisticated with these kinds of historical cultural
references. So, still hateful, but not a dummy. That phrase was not an
accident.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Agreed, it was not an accident. He hired Miller and Gorka. Also not by
accident. Gorka left after Bannon, but Stephen Miller is pretty knowledgable
as well as open about his views on race and fascism, and often seems involved
in messaging strategy.

------
fermienrico
Side topic: Should government control looting when it comes to violent
protests?

~~~
throwaway9d0291
Looting is illegal. It happening when there's a violent "protest" going on
doesn't make it any less illegal.

One of the government's core tasks is to enforce the law, so yes, the
government should control looting.

And FWIW, I think "violent protest" is a misleading euphemism. This is a riot,
whether you speak American [0] or English [1].

I honestly don't understand why this is a question. Why wouldn't the
government be expected to enforce the law?

[0]: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/riot)

[1]:
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/riot](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/riot)

~~~
fermienrico
I am raising this question because many think that looting is the right thing
to do and it allows avenge of George Floyd. I personally think that it hurts
George Floyd's cause and only creates more divide. Violence is not the answer
to society's deep racial issues.

Thanks I guess for citing the definition of a Riot. I think that's a better
word for it.

------
tantalor
@dang hey can we unflag this?

~~~
umvi
I vote we move the discussion to reddit, which is a better suited platform for
politics.

~~~
stillbourne
I'm sorry, but technology does not exist in a vacuum insulated from the rest
of the universe. An implementation of any given application, its code, its
infrastructure, and its services may be apolitical, but as a platform that is
used for communication it is important that conversations be had about how
these platforms are used. Perhaps _you_ can bury your head in the sand and
pretend that society is not falling apart at the seams due in large part to
the spread of misinformation across any number of internet forums and social
media services, but I think the rest of us may have an opinion that is
inimical to ignoring the problem.

~~~
hwbehrens
I don't necessarily agree that _this_ article is not appropriate for HN, but I
do agree with the parent that, in general, it is not an appropriate venue for
political discussions.

That is not to say that political discussions shouldn't be had -- simply that
they shouldn't be had _everywhere_. In particular, different venues are
appropriate for different discussions, and in my opinion we don't benefit if
all spaces consist of homogenized topics.

If I want to discuss and learn about tech, HN is a good venue for that. If I
want to learn about cooking, I might go to Youtube or Chowhound. If I want to
delve into politics, I might go to NYT or Reddit.

However, when I'm searching for a recipe for banana bread, I don't care to
discuss politics in the comments of that post, nor do I consider that
preference to be burying my head in the sand. Adjustments to the amount of
baking soda, or the replacement of bananas with plantains, yes; "orange man
bad", no. Not because I don't agree, or because I am ignoring politics, but
simply because it's not the place to have that conversation.

~~~
archagon
Technology runs the world. There’s just no clean way to separate out the
politics.

------
lowdose
Does Netflix have a documentary maker inside the Whitehouse at the moment?

------
sigzero
Yet, Kaepernick's isn't hidden (which also pushes violence).

------
catacombs
Free advice: Never tweet.

------
bartelby
Twitter is definitely allowed to do this, legally, but seems like a pretty
short-sited decision. There's no way that poking the bear like this is going
to lead to anything except a more highly regulated platform.

~~~
ceejayoz
> There's no way that poking the bear like this is going to lead to anything
> except a more highly regulated platform.

How? Attempts at regulating Twitter's ability to fact-check on their own
privately owned platform would almost certainly fail a First Amendment
challenge, and the Democratic House isn't gonna go a long with new laws to
crack down on it either.

------
sytelus
I’m now fully expecting republican mega donors coming together to trying to
gain control of Tweeter as strategic asset. At $23B market cap it’s fairly
easy target given there are already other major investors wanting to see
Dorsey out. There already had been movement to buy off super cheap local radio
stations and turn them in to conservative media at scale. Republican think
tanks understands the immense value of building media channels and they have
ton of money sloshing around. I can imagine Twitter with new CEO banning all
tweets from Joe Biden because they are all deemed factually incorrect or
misleading.

------
jacknews
I hate to have anything even vaguely in common with Trump, but there is _some_
sense in this.

The platforms have been shadow-banning (a particularly egregious policy),
censoring, and otherwise shaping the content on their sites for a good while
now.

At the same time they claim to be merely a 'pipe', conecting content
producers, and consumers.

They can't have it both ways.

This 'executive order' is obviously a spiteful, and frankly, unbelievable-
that-it's-legal move by this, man, but there is still a germ of truth to it.

For me, tagging content, but still making it generally available, is far less
sinister than disappearing it, or only presenting it to profiled users, etc,
etc.

IMHO.

~~~
streb-lo
Any modern pipe connecting consumers to producers is going to rely on some
sort of matching algorithm to map the two. If they just used some sort of dumb
FIFO -- user retention and advertising dollars would disappear.

Like it or not, there are political ramifications in that algorithm no matter
how hard it tries to be neutral. Even platforms that stay 'hands off' are
shaping content and it's almost impossible for them not to while retaining
what we've come to expect from a modern platform.

------
phtrivier
I find it clever that Twitter is not deleting the tweets, but simply adding
their opinions about it.

I don't know if you can call "censure" when your messages are still visible to
the public, but the "editor-that-is-not-really-an-editor-but-sort-of" simply
adds a banner saying "yeah, sure, right."

I can't wait for Trump to protest the flagging, and Twitter to respond that
"flagging tweets while letting them visible" is just expressing their free
speech. Surely Trump supporters are all in favor of free speech in a free
country, right ?

~~~
alkibiades
yes we support free speech but if they are editiorializing then section 230 no
longer applies to them. we should prosecute them for all the child
exploitation and other crimes such as defamation on their platform

------
hsnewman
As they should.

------
pmarreck
It did not "hide" the tweet

------
Havoc
In other news, in an unfortunate training accident a low yield nuclear device
was dropped on twitter HQ

------
cryptica
People who voted for Trump wanted chaos and now he is giving it to them. If he
keeps going he might get re-elected.

------
mimikatz
I feel really disconnected from what is the online mainstream thought. Trump
is a huge embarrassment and this tweet should never come from our president.
Twitter is doing some real selective enforcement that doesn't seem even handed
or even logical. The Tweet in question vaguely qualifies, and there is much
worse stuff being posted to Twitter that more clearly and more demonstratively
glorifies violence. Search Twitter for "burn it down" (just a example phrase,
but you could pick "shoot the cops" or any number of things)
[https://twitter.com/search?q=%22burn%20it%20down%22&src=type...](https://twitter.com/search?q=%22burn%20it%20down%22&src=typed_query&f=live)
and you get
[https://twitter.com/Pork_Soda_187/status/1266287249261424641](https://twitter.com/Pork_Soda_187/status/1266287249261424641)
[https://twitter.com/katie80980282/status/1266287106147508231](https://twitter.com/katie80980282/status/1266287106147508231)
[https://twitter.com/hengebeat/status/1266286823480782852](https://twitter.com/hengebeat/status/1266286823480782852)

and these are all in the last 5 minutes. Selective enforcement doesn't put
Twitter in a good light and doesn't seem like something that is in the best
interest of their company. Also it is a bad look that their head of site
integrity was saying vile stuff about the other half of America.

I really dislike Trump and will definitely vote against him. I don't get the
overwhelming support for actions like this from Twitter.

~~~
loopz
It's often troubling, but moderation has always been selective.

~~~
makomk
This particular selective moderation is functionally equivalent to Twitter
giving their backing to an actual, real-world riot and associated calls to
murder cops whilst hiding behind Section 230 in order to avoid any liability.
That seems... inadvisable, though obviously popular with the political faction
most of their employees come from.

~~~
thosakwe
It's not equivalent to that at all. They deleted his Tweet because it
explicitly called for gun violence against protestors. That's the ostensible
reasoning. Can you see why it might be problematic for the president of the
nation to do that?

------
Simulacra
Twitter has become the example of right vs left. I don't think this tweet
"glorifies" violence, but my opinion doesn't matter, only Twitter's. That
herein is the problem. It would be interesting if Trump left twitter and made
the journalists follow him to some other platform.

~~~
RIMR
It's perfectly okay that you hold the opinion that the tweet didn't glorify
violence. Your opinion is objectively wrong, but you're allowed to hold it.

~~~
Simulacra
Only according to your opinion. Just because you disagree with me does not
mean you're right.

~~~
chrsm
Look into the history of the phrase he used - and you will realize that you
are wrong.

~~~
hu3
History is full of lies told by those who won wars.

------
scared2
I would like to see the impact of this feud , it will start with Twitter
stock.

------
bgorman
Objectively - how is this advocating for violence? I have not been following
this deeply but it seems like there is already serious violence occurring
where dozens of people have been charged with probable felonies and buildings
have been set on fire? Isn't it the responsibility of the local government to
protect private property? It certainly seems like the situation is out of hand
when a police station is burned to the ground.

The National guard has been dispatched in similar situations e.g. Rodney King
riots. Ostensibly the reason for the deployment is to "ensure peace"

I understand Trump walks a thin line, but in my opinion he is very skilled at
never literally advocating for violence or overtly racist actions.

I absolutely do not condone excessive force against anyone, but I fail to
understand how this specific tweet is glorifying violence. I'm just trying to
understand

~~~
advisedwang
The phrase Trump uses is a direct quote from a police chief who was explicitly
giving the OK to his police officers to kill protesters.

Much as I hate the over-use of the term "dog whistle" this is the exact thing
it means. It has plausible deniability, but to the intended audience it sends
a clear message.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/05/29/when-
the-l...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/05/29/when-the-looting-
starts-the-shooting-starts-trump-walter-headley/)

~~~
bgorman
I see, the original post didn't show this tweet

------
msoad
This might be helpful for the context. Mark Zuckerburg went to Fox News and
Trump tweeted about how Facebook will not do the same. Zuckerburg also had Xi
Jinping's book on his desk at some point.

------
ngneer
publicity stunt

------
thefounder
This is great! Now we can have a real conversation about free speach, net
neutrality and so on...hopefully Trump will get some some abusive dmca
notifications as well. That would be gold!

------
GhostVII
Hiding the tweet instead of removing it seems like a good compromise to me,
but I think this sets a pretty difficult precedent for Twitter. Once you start
hiding tweets like this, you are implying that any high profile tweets you
don't hide are not classified as glorifying violence. And every time you hide
a tweet for glorifying violence, people who supported that tweet will show
examples of other tweets which were not hidden to show that it should not have
been hidden/removed. Seems like an impossible standard to uphold given the
amount of people glorifying violence on their platform.

~~~
koheripbal
Only if they applied the rules equally to all politicians, and only if the
process were transparent.

There's a lot of danger in allowing corporations to control the political
conversation globally.

~~~
ViViDboarder
Too late for that. They have for many years. This is only the most visible
form of control.

Corporations spend enormous amounts of money every year on exactly this. I
believe lobbying politicians to take their side and the shaping of media
coverage has had an even larger impact than hiding a tweet behind a click.

------
seesawtron
In 2017 a rogue twitter employee suspended Donal Trump's account on last day
at the job. Did the world politics change in that downtime?

~~~
generj
The account was only suspended for like 17 minutes, and it’s not clear the
POTUS even noticed. So no, no impact to world politics.

~~~
seesawtron
One week of A/B testing would an ideal experiment for social scientists
studying impact of world leader's tweets on the world news. Almost a utopia.

------
NicoJuicy
And all the Trump bots seem broken with the situation.

Normally a lot of botlike responders with a generic message on a message of
Trump.

Not on this tweet it seems.

------
alexeiz
Keep digging, Dorsey.

------
monksy
Also something to note: Trump is using the POTUS account to retweet his
personal not official titled account (realDonaldTrump).

So.. If he gets banned, we have a cause of ban evasion.

We might see 2 twitter accounts banned. This is going to be fun and amusing.

------
gigatexal
Hopefully they’ll just kick him and his acolytes off the platform. I’ve not
met people so drunk on hero worship that they forgo facts and reason as I have
when speaking with my trump supporting friends and family. And now he’s trying
to sway elections by using misinformation? Openly using the pulpit of the
highest office to spread patently false rumors? His fear mongering is harmful
and has been violating Twitter’s terms for years but hey I guess it was good
for business until recently... still good for them.

------
scared2
Lol apparently Trump's tweets are in par with NSFW

------
neycoda
Maybe Trump should stop quoting racist violent people.

------
midasz
Wow. This man needs a lesson on how to deescalate a situation properly. Will
this heavy handed approach really make people less angry? I doubt it..

~~~
Aeolun
I think it's interesting how he's threatening China about HK on one hand, but
on the other hand being a _lot_ more literal and aggressive towards his own
people.

~~~
totalZero
I think he does not know how to handle the moves being made by China to
advance its territorial claims in this chaotic moment. That would explain
Donald's domestic diversions.

China is pushing outward toward Hong Kong and Taiwan, in simultaneous fashion.
In the former, we have the national security law. In the latter, we have new
and uncamouflaged threats that China will use military force in Taiwan if it
cannot control the island peacefully.

If Trump keeps our attention away from the China problem, it won't affect the
stock market and we won't focus on its impacts on the world economy.

~~~
Ididntdothis
Trump is just a big bully who loses courage when he gets pushback. Look at how
nice he is to the North Korea guy while constantly bashing and demonizing
other leaders of democratic countries.

------
2019-nCoV
How is that glorifying violence?

~~~
s5300
Well, looting had already started _hours_ before he'd posted this.

That being said - the President of the United States, just stated on one of
the largest social media platforms used in the U.S., that citizens of the U.S.
are now to be shot. From his words, immediately. It could even be viewed as
"they should've already been shot at"

If you don't understand how this is glorifying violence, I don't think you can
be made to.

~~~
vsssk
I'm reading the tweet more like 'I will authorize the use of deadly force by
the military against the looters'. Although I could see several
interpretations

But I think the real thing people aren't able to come to grips with is how
Trump uses the media in such a style that gives him all plausible deniability,
builds outrage AND builds support. All at once.

------
fsflover
Time for Trump to use Mastodon.

~~~
101404
That would be really funny.

Imagine all the devs and supporters of Mastodon trying hard to come up with a
pretext why it is okay to block him from the network via technical changes.

~~~
AgentME
It's pretty established that individual Mastodon nodes are able to impose the
rules they want and network with whichever Mastodon nodes they want. And many
popular Mastodon nodes have stricter rules than Twitter, so it would hardly be
surprising if they shunned someone who broke rules on Twitter.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
110% I wouldn't federate with any node that allows that sort of posting (from
Trump or anyone else). I run a a mastodon node precisely because I _don 't_
want to deal with the racism, homophobia, and transphobia so common on
twitter.

------
ddorian43
This how Donald Trump won in the first place. People just won't learn. They
can continue bubbling themselves by losing the next election too and get
shocked.

~~~
ddorian43
Downvoting me will increase your shock after the next election.

------
roenxi
This seems like a dubious foundation for Twitter to start with. If Trump
controls the National Guard there is a definite public interest in knowing
when he is likely to deploy the National Guard. It'd be headline news after
the fact; it should be telegraphed beforehand.

Trump might be bluffing, but Twitter can't possibly know.

~~~
danso
The president does not have the authority to call in the National Guard to
perform law enforcement in a state — that is the governor’s decision:

[https://kstp.com/news/minnesota-national-guard-activated-
to-...](https://kstp.com/news/minnesota-national-guard-activated-to-control-
protests-following-george-floyds-death/5743967/)

[https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599895184/why-president-
trump...](https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599895184/why-president-trump-cant-
directly-order-national-guard-troops-to-u-s-mexico-bord)

------
gowld
The hardest part here is deciphering what the incoherent tweet is trying to
say.

We have a President that is consistently harder to comprehend than GPT-2. Let
that sink in.

Here's some back on the phrase.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-
phrase-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-
looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676)

The amazing part to me is that Trump knows an authoritarian-violence
catchphrase from 50 years ago. "MAGA" indeed.

------
hacker_9
It's interesting Twitter finally started taking a stand in Trump's last year
as president, I wonder if it's because they hope he'll get ousted and they
won't have to deal with the backlash from him for too long. Or it's just a
marketing ploy, perhaps customer count was falling.

~~~
noobermin
I'm not trying to valorize Jack, but why is it so hard to believe they just
finally feel some level of responsibility? While you should always keep an eye
out for more banal motivations, at some point one can only tolerate so much.

~~~
chroma
I agree that Jack is well-intentioned, but I think he's making a huge mistake
by choosing a half measure. Twitter's current policy allows Trump to claim
he's being silenced while simultaneously allowing him to get his message out
to his Twitter followers. It's the worst of both worlds.

Twitter should either let him tweet whatever he wants or ban him.

~~~
Traster
I think what you're seeing is Twitter building a track record that will allow
them to effectively ban him. Take a look at Reddit, they've been following the
exact same track for /r/the_donald. They're not interested in trying to make
sure Trump stays on twitter, they're just interested in creating the trail of
evidence that when they do kick him off they can talk about how incredibly
tolerant they were.

------
umvi
At this point I feel like Twitter is _trying_ to push Trump's buttons. 4 years
of not censoring Trump's tweets and now all of a sudden they have an ethical
obligation? Which straw broke the camel's back?

~~~
Covzire
I really don't understand what part of Trump's tweet is "glorifying" violence,
can anyone help me out on the rationale?

~~~
mdszy
"when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Just read that a few times until you get it through your head.

~~~
Covzire
Nope, not working for me, not from a politician tasked with the security of
the nation.

Just recently a famous comedian suggested injecting him with an air filled
syringe, what did Twitter do there?

Twitter has gone and lost their minds. Bring on the down votes I guess.

~~~
mdszy
1\. So suspending rights and allowing cops/the military to be the judge, jury
and executioner is somehow okay? These are _citizens_ , no matter how your
thinly veiled racism is clearly making you think they're not.

2\. Comedians are not _the fucking president_.

~~~
Izkata
> Comedians are not the fucking president.

She later clarified it wasn't a joke.

~~~
mdszy
Okay cool, that means exactly nothing.

Please tell me what actual ability a comedian has to get someone to inject
Trump's veins with air.

And then consider what ability Trump has to make good on the statement "when
the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Or are you just being purposefully obtuse?

~~~
dependenttypes
Are you claiming that if tweeter had taken it down the danger of the police
shooting looters would be gone?

------
millstone
Twitter's problem is that Trump wants to pick a fight, and there's no good way
to avoid it.

Trump's base is not on Twitter. Fact checking tweets provides more grist for
the outrage mill, and the media which his base consumes amplifies the conflict
and not the substance. So the tweets will get worse and worse.

It's impossible to give Twitter good advice, it's a horrible position to be
in.

~~~
noobermin
They should honestly just cross the rubicon and suspend his account. Playing
both sides like they have will only prolong the conflict. Trump and the
outrage mill alike will still find things to interpret as fighting until
Twitter just pulls the switch.

------
corrupt_measure
Except it wasn't glorifying violence. Like at all. He was not saying that if
looting continues then police would start shooting, that's a twisted and
strained interpretation.

He was stating simply that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting
must be stopped before things become more violent. It is a call to action to
those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK
or justified.

In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be
shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best
interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.

It is a clear example of the dangers of allowing Twitter to moderate when such
an egregiously bad interpretation of Trump's tweet triggers moderation.

------
lenwood
Trump seems to think Twitter is a public service within his domain, rather
than a private company with its own agenda & governance. I'm glad Twitter is
responding to him, I respect them for the position they're taking.

In addition to his executive order [1], Trump has threatened to delete his
Twitter account [2].

[1]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-executive-
order-t...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-executive-order-
targeting-social-media-11590681930)

[2]: [https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/twitter-flags-
trumps-t...](https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/twitter-flags-trumps-tweet-
protests-glorifying-violence-70947145)

~~~
koheripbal
Can you cite an alternative platform similar to twitter?

~~~
ViViDboarder
Mastodon is quite similar. Also, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Medium, Blogger,
etc. will all let you post content to a group of follower.

~~~
koheripbal
I don't think any of those are the same at all. That's like banning someone
from using a refrigerator and telling him he can use picnic coolers instead.

These monopolies have their niche.

~~~
ViViDboarder
Facebook is far from a “picnic cooler”.

------
ykevinator
Why do police keep killing black people?

------
s5300
I actually reported it, and will act as if I actually played a role in this /s

Very much looking forward to seeing how this plays out this evening.

If I could recommend a title edit though, "Donald Trump" \--> "POTUS"

------
olivermarks
As an elected official and part of a giant bureaucracy the US president has a
right to make proclamations, and the media has the right to criticize, refute
and contradict. Where this gets delicate is with a person who holds enormous
power and is literally leading the administration. People want to hear what
this leader has to say, and censoring/hiding/second guessing what this person
says is arguably undemocratic. Trump is irrelevant here, it could be any
elected official or administration leader. Pompeo or the US military could be
considered to 'glorify violence' with their statements, does this give Twitter
the right to hide their tweets? This is a free speech issue at the heart of
democracy, and Twitter keep overstepping their S230 remit.

~~~
trymas
But twitter is a private business or isn't it? Twitter users must agree to
Twitter TOS isn't it?

Your freedom of speech is also Twitter's freedom of speech and if you don't
like that someone uses their freedom to calls you on your bullshit - then
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ .

POTUS has whitehouse.gov if he thinks that private business does not let him
say what he want's to say.

~~~
olivermarks
Section 230 'hands off' service provision rather than editorializing is the
issue here as well as rights to free speech whoever you are. The fact Trump
enrages most people is a separate distraction. This is a downward slope to
more censorship by large unelected global corporations and their political
proclivities and goals.

------
plutonorm
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want
1984? Because this is how you get 1984.

~~~
ddrager
Censorship comes in many forms. Governmental censorship? Bad. Self-censorship
of a platform such as Twitter, good, and necessary.

~~~
plutonorm
Self censorship? How do you know those doing the censoring aren’t bought and
paid for? Censorship is bad - period.

------
zenexer
Twitter must be a victim of the toilet paper shortage because they just wiped
their ass with Trump’s executive order.[0]

Jokes and politics aside, is this a smart business move on Twitter's part? I'm
curious how they envision this playing out. I'm really not sure what I expect
to happen; Trump may be a fool, but he's stubborn and persistent. There are
also politicians on both sides of the fence who are at odds with social media
right now--and often Silicon Valley in general. (See: encryption)

I have no doubt Twitter put a lot of thought into this. Does anyone have
insight into what Twitter expects to happen? Also, what would they expect to
happen if they opted not to label/hide/whatever some of Trump's tweets?

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161)

------
pinkfoot
Out of curiosity, what is do the democratically passed laws in major economies
actually say about the use of violence to stop looting ?

------
senectus1
haha, good. but I dont envy Twitter management. they have stepped onto a very
slippery slope.

and one they cant make a "winning" decision about. however this works out,
Twitter will lose.

As much as I hate FB and dont use it, they have made the "safer" decision.

~~~
totalZero
Part of the reason people hate FB and don't use it, is that their leadership
is afraid to make risky decisions for the benefit of their users and the
quality of their platform.

~~~
ddxxdd
It seems like Facebook is beating Twitter in terms of frequency and duration
of use: [https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-
marketing/social-...](https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-
marketing/social-network-landscape-chartoftheday/) (2017).

------
adrianN
I'm a bit surprised that this fight with the POTUS doesn't have a stronger
influence on Twitter's stock value.

~~~
viraptor
He's not moving anywhere and any Twitter controversy gets more people to tweet
about that controversy... Until he forces a significant part of his followers
to leave, it's not a bad situation for Twitter to be in.

~~~
roenxi
> He's not moving anywhere...

If they're going to block his tweets, why wouldn't Trump go elsewhere? It'll
be interesting to see what he does do next.

~~~
viraptor
He could, but it would be a bit like Reddit/voat situation for an independent
platform. Otherwise where can he go for remotely comparable publicity? IG/FB?
I don't see FB working with his style of communication and it's not as easy to
embed in news as Twitter. Ig would be closer.

~~~
anigbrowl
There's always Gab XD

------
rayiner
What kind of utterly ridiculous policy is hiding posts for “glorifying
violence?” So if I write a post about the Bangladeshi independence war, saying
how great it was that we beat those damn Pakistanis, my post would get hidden?

~~~
reportingsjr
When you threaten to start shooting people you are glorifying violence. I am
guessing you didn't even look at the tweets.

~~~
rayiner
So if I say it was great that India came in with guns blazing in 1971, killing
thousands of Pakistani soldiers to liberate Bangladesh, that is a view that
should be censored?

------
gabordemooij
Hiding = processing, so Twitter generates new content by filtering parts of
the original content. Therefore, Twitter is a publisher and should be held
responsible for all of its content. This should have been a no-brainer.

------
enriquto
I couldn't care less for the politics of the USA, but it is mildly amusing
that twitter are trolling one of their most prominent users.

~~~
loopz
Moderating a prominent troll and raising the standards to the level of every
other user, is not really politics.

~~~
apexalpha
Oh, but it is. It is when the prominent troll is also POTUS.

You and Twitter may want it to not be politics... But unfortunately both doing
nothing and doing something are political moves by Twitter HQ, I'm afraid.

------
throwawaysea
So is twitter going to hide tweets that have incited and glorified the riots
in the first place? I haven’t seen consequences for the antifa and DSA
accounts that are responsible for these riots. It certainly seems like Twitter
has a double standard.

------
paganel
I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in
the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.

~~~
rootlocus
Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

~~~
acid__
Maybe a statement that we can all agree on would be: _selectively_ fact
checking implies picking sides?

I think it's a point of contention (colored by existing political views) as to
whether or not Twitter is selectively fact checking here.

Hopefully this isn't too controversial, there's a lot of hostility already in
this thread, and I don't want to contribute to it.

~~~
makomk
Selectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than
factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving
actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.

------
egberts1
But it’s okay for President Obama to call the Baltimore rioters “criminals and
thugs”.

[https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-
rioters-...](https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-
criminals-and-thugs/)

~~~
Wingman4l7
See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

------
The_rationalist
If Twitter sucess to fight for the truth without exposing bias they will be
the most remarkable heroes of the 2001 century and could begin a whole change
of behavior of websites regarding fake news and hate speech

------
krick
That's fun. Twitter did shut up foreign presidents a couple of times before,
but I guess this is the first time with the president of USA. That's ballsy as
fuck. Impertinently, even. Totally not ok to do, but fun to watch.

------
alkibiades
censoring the commander in chief is an active act of aggression against the
american people. not only should we repeal section 230, we should view twitter
as a hostile power.

we should study twitters deep ties to the saudis and china. and jack should be
investigated. they also should no longer be protected by section 230 and
therefore should be prosecuted for the child exploitation they host

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Don't you have press conferences in your country? You know, where a leader or
political figure can express their policy decisions without having to abide by
private website ToS.

~~~
alkibiades
section 230 was a special provision that was passed to protect the fledgling
internet 25 years ago. i don’t think it’s crazy to think it needs updating or
repeal.

------
gabordemooij
I don't see the problem, just reject the special privs for twitter and treat
it like a publisher. It should be fairly simple, either you do not moderate at
all (and your not responsible for whatever people say on your platform) or you
moderate and therefore you publish. It aint that hard. Twitter clearly
moderates, that's fine, so it should be treated as a publisher, not as a
public 'facility'. Simple.

~~~
khaledtaha
Or perhaps we should take a step back and design a new set of rules that can
allow Twitter and other companies to moderate without having to be responsible
for the content. I feel like there’s a false dichotomy being portrayed here
that’s unnecessary.

~~~
gabordemooij
This kind of logic makes life hopelessly complex. It's a very simple rule that
does not need 'special adjustments'. Just stick to the rules we agreed upon
and face the facts. Twitter is now a publisher. You cannot bend the rules
everytime you don't agree with them.

------
bilbo0s
In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are
more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined
in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.

~~~
tehwebguy
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for
them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone
would see that as anything other than a _crime against humanity_

~~~
Simulacra
No, I don't think it was. A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone,
to do, anything. It is an observation. Just like it was your observation (and
opinion) that it said something different.

The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?

~~~
bosswipe
Honestly, I can't figure out what the tweet means. "Any difficulty and we will
assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." From a
plain reading I think he's saying when the feds take control they will shoot
looters.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I think it means that Trump doesn't understand that he can't just march the
Army in there at his sole discretion.

But if the situation escalated to the point that federal troops were needed
(at the request of the state), then yes, there is almost certainly going to be
shooting. You don't expect that a stern look from the Army is going to do the
job.

------
mariodiana
Calling for the quelling of an insurrection is not "glorifying violence," it
is exactly what a government is supposed to do.

~~~
ndespres
By calling for the military to shoot protesting citizens? Come on.

~~~
skocznymroczny
How is looting stores and destroying public property a proper way to protest?

~~~
krapp
Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The Boston Tea Party was a deliberate provocation. If the protesters here are
trying to incite a violent revolution, I suppose that's their right in some
sense, but all of us who don't want a revolution have a right to be put out by
it.

~~~
jonhohle
Replying to krapp: violent armed protest protected by the constitution is
explicitly targeted at the government in response to loss of freedom. That may
be justification for attacking a police station, but not local businesses.

------
peacelilly
It's long past time to regulate social media like a phone company, natural
monopoly, or common carrier. The DOJ needs to break them up for violating the
public trust, then limit their ability to refuse service to law abiding
citizens moving into the future. Government has every right to force companies
to be neutral platforms through regulation. It's time to revoke/enforce
section 230, especially the "good faith" clause.

Anyone who says that "Twitter is a private company that can refuse anyone" has
never ran an actual company. There are plenty of rules against companies
discriminating. That argument is the same argument used by Democrats against
the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 which a Republican majority congress
passed (82% of republicans voted yes).

Remember when this forum was up in arms about NET NEUTRALITY? Remember when
the big bad ISP was going to censor you? Remember when all the sites went
black because thats what the ISPs would do? Now the sites that went black are
all committing the censoring. All the sites that went black track every
movement you make online. Who needs DNS when you have outgoing link tracking
and like buttons on every page.

Social media is about to be regulated. Its about time.

~~~
chooseaname
> The DOJ needs to break them up for violating the public trust...

Twitter, Facebook, et al are _entertainment_. There's not trust to violate.

~~~
Nasrudith
Even if they were an informational service having the DOJ "break them up"
would be way more illegal than anything they could directly publish.

~~~
peacelilly
You can have a monopoly and not abuse your power, or you can have your
monopoly broken up. The Sherman Antitrust act still exists. Law still exists.
There are already multiple anti-trust investigations underway by the states,
and the DOJ.

There is bipartisan support to break them up. Ask Warren.

What is illegal about enforcing the law?

