Hacker News Reader

It gets blurry as to what is specifically a direct call for violence versus "plain old hate speech".

I'm all for nuance, but I can't imagine this being the hill people want to die on RE: censorship. As long as the calls for violence aren't overt we're cool with them? I might be in the minority but I don't have a problem lumping plain old hate speech in with inciting violence. I'm trying to imagine the best possible take on what Trump is trying to do by tweeting incendiary misinformation and I just can't get there.

I'm not advocating for censorship, I'm simply pointing out that it's not so simple as to say that if there is no direct incitement to violence, that said speech is "acceptable".

Ongoing dehumanization of "others" is dangerous territory and needs to be acknowledged as such.

I think the closest solution is "cancel culture" (hate that term) where the general market rejects the offering but it's still allowed for "fairness".

Oh I agree with you, I was referring to the person you were replying to. The idea that a private company making decisions about users on their platform is censorship is ridiculous to begin with. 1 in 10 Americans use Twitter, to say that Twitter is even capable of censoring the president, even if had they would disable his account permanently, would be laughable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com