Hacker News Reader

Comment by fwn | Hacker News Reader

I downvoted you. I'm a German who, like most Germans, does not like Trump.

The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform.

This development is far more relevant to me than the largely US american pro/contra Trump debate, as my own societies discourse is dependent on those very same platforms.

I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor.

I think that's off topic and misses the point.

I just thought I'll explain since the thread appears to be very heated right now. People might attribute up & downvotes to a far smaller set of reasons than they should on a platform as global as HN.

View on HN

We have armed men rallying outside of people's houses because of him.

Armed with what? Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons? Frankly, anyone that threatens or carries out acts of violence is at fault, regardless of their political persuasion - don't turn a blind eye to actual criminals just because you think you might agree with them.

Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons?

Those people with molotov cocktails have been almost exclusively targeting property rather than people, and specifically corporate rather than personal property. I'm not suggesting you should approve that, but it is categorically different.

As for your question, it makes a huge difference. While any weapon can be used to inflict harm (by definition), some make that significantly easier than others. It's facile to ignore this and pretend all harms are equivalent.

What if he tweeted encouraging people to go murder [insert any of the groups he has repeatedly attacked] ? Would the absolutism of allowing that outweigh the obvious problems it would bring on?

Four US presidents have been assasinated, two wounded, and there have been attempts on many more, including Trump. Clearly speech critical of the president cannot be allowed on twitter.

I originally left out the word "he," which made my question less clear. But if a president encouraged murder, do you think that should be left alone? What if he tweeted he would pardon anyone, even further encouraging it?

> The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform.
...

> I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor.

what you see is a global company acting locally and so not too surprising, no? Algorithmic biases and assumption engineered so the service is successful with a US ideology. Nobody asks the question in any tech company does the product only work in my market (unless you're outside the US). There are plenty of German companies (start-ups especially) which first design for a market that works in the US. Even language support is first English before they become local. FAANG and every SV start-up thinks first whether that works here in the US. It's just normal business sense and no big scheme of why they do this. Twitter does it because it makes sense for them to fight back against lies and disinformation that end up killing people. Free Speech ends here.

Bit awkward but I'll use the example I had in mind. What would have happened if people stopped Hitler from standing in beer halls blaming Jews for everything. He wouldn't have been able to gather a following and influencer so many people and so many lives would have been spared. I use the Hitler example, because what we're seeing is Trump trying to grasp power not via a vote but undermining the vote and is stirring up tensions pretty much like Hitler.

I get everyone thinks free speech is essential, but we live in a world where free speech is not a thing for very valid reasons. Germany only promises freedom of opinion; they don't actually promise you can tell anyone that opinion, try denying the holocaust. And in Germany, you're not legally allowed to insult someone (civil matter, but still not legal), in Berlin, and someone got convicted (eventually overturned but the fact it happened is massive) for farting on a police officer. The US, which claims to be the centre of freedom, has one of the lowest press freedoms and a multitude of laws to keep things secret. There are things that we know people shouldn't be allowed to say. Freedom of speech is a myth and should not be used to enable the destruction of democracy or to spread propaganda (in any sense).

I'm sure the majority of people here would agree terrorism propaganda videos shouldn't be hosted on twitter or youtube, and people shouldn't be allowed to promote terrorism. Well, this is basically the same, in many of the Trump supporter stuff, I've seen calls for domestic terrorism.

Also, I think a lot of people don't realise why we're seeing an increase in companies stepping up here. Biden has offically won, now. All states have certified who won. The election is over. All that can be done now is stirring up hate and starting a civil war.

Is there a reason to think they intend to use these strategies more generally?

Because any power would corrupts eventually?

So? That isn't the only input to the system. The conclusion here obviously cannot be "then grant no power to anybody" unless you are the most extreme left-anarchist. Power has the capacity to harm but also aid. We must balance the risk of harm against the potential for aid.

The ability to run a standing army can be used for ill. Yet we have an army.

The ability to regulate corporate pollution can be used for ill. Yet we have pollution regulations.

The ability to throw people in prison via the justice system can be used for ill. Yet we have laws and courts and prisons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com