Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_y_n_t_a_x | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it.

Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and don't need the corporate media to make decisions for them.

I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased.

View on HN

perhaps some people are

we know for a fact that most people are susceptible to misinformation and propaganda. the modern advertising industry should be more than enough proof of that

Are you in favor of denying such people the right to vote? Why or why not? If they're too stupid to think for themselves, should they still be able to vote?

So who gets to decide what is misinformation and propaganda?

Because it seems liberals want to paint any conservative idea as propaganda, just because it's a different though.

From my perspective, and proven via wikileaks, the Democrats have been a propaganda machine, and definitely conspire with the corporate media, but sure, let's target the President.

Well, since it's Twitter's own platform, and they make the rules, they could just as easily ban someone simply because they don't like them. That's how owning things works.

Ah yes, so now we'll fallback to they are a private company because there is no other defense.

They are free to do whatever they want, they are not free from criticism.

That's why I don't deal with Twitter, I support freedom of speech, and clearly they don't. So them, and the Saudi's that own them can go tweet themselves.

It's not a "fallback", I'm pretty sure being a private company is their entire raison d'etre. And, you know, like the sign in every small-town diner says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

Which is to say, they can give any reason, or no reason at all, for showing a user the door. That's their prerogative as the owners and operators of a business.

Except they've worked hard to intentionally become what can be classified as a public broadcast medium. They can try and refuse service but it's unlikely they won't be compelled by the courts or legislation to provide open access. That means thru can't just live with their own rules.

They can put up any sign they like, but that hasn't been true since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Donald Trump does not belong to any class protected under the Civil Rights Act.

The point is this: With the CRA, the idea that business owners have freedom of association is officially dead. They must provide service to whomever the government compels them to.

I think the majority of HNers:

- Don't like it when private companies do racism

- Like it when private companies do censorship

So they should just say so. Don't try to bamboozle me with tactical Libertarianism.

I’m the opposite of a libertarian. I completely support the civil rights act and the governments ability to compel businesses to provide service to members of protected classes. Donald Trump does not belong to a protected class. How is this hard to understand, I don’t get it

Right, I'd expect just that from a company where a Saudi prince owns more shares than Jack Dorsey.

And I'm from a small town, and I've been to many. I've never seen a sign like that.

Most consumer-oriented businesses ranging from laundromats to coffee shops to bars to diners have signs that say that.

Interesting how Kamala Harris requested they do something about him, and now this.

I don't see how a sane, rational person could see the unfiltered tweets of the President and still think that he is fit for that job.

I especially don't see how someone would chalk it up to democrat propaganda.

(I self-identify as liberal)

There are plenty of liberals who should sprout misinformation and should be de-platformed. Many in the anti-vaxxer movement are liberal politically and have caused real harm.

Via downvotes HN is making sure your opinion is invalid

> Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it.

Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them.

What is changing here is whether you hear from them just because your buddy Ed(wina) thinks they said something amazing, when they have a track record for breaking the Twitter rules.

IME, keeping on Twitter's good side is a pretty low bar is you're powerful and well-connected, so you will still hear plenty from the usual suspects.

> I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased.

Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking, and it involves relying on a very small set of third-party fact-checking organizations.

Look it up for yourself.

> Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them.

I was responding to the GP "We have no obligation to allow them to use social networks for propaganda purposes."

> Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking

Didn't find anything, care to link it? I hope it's not PolitiFact

Reply on news.ycombinator.com