Hacker News Reader

Comment by endymi0n | Hacker News Reader

Also from the original article:

"On November 5, 2020, Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode."

It's good they finally pulled the trigger, but considering that Steven Bannon has been constantly putting oil to the fire on every single channel available, that point was very certainly much earlier.

View on HN

I've seen the term "permanently suspended" several times already. Not a native speaker, could someone please explain to me the difference between that and "banned"?

They mean the same thing; it’s just a choice of words.

In practice they effectively mean the same thing. I suspect they're going with "permanently suspended" now because they want to avoid people using phrases like they "banned free speech" or something similar to that.

"permanently suspended free speech" doesn't really sound much different than "banned free speech".

I can't really see this being a big deal, Bannon's got enough wealth to make his own website.

As a native speaker, it's probably a distinction without a difference. Both sound more harsh than regular suspension and both sound less harsh than permanently banned. Neither one tells you exactly what they've done in terms of the amount of effort required to re-instate him if they change their mind. Both signal that they're unlikely to change their minds any time soon.

With a physical location, "banned" sometimes implies they've been declared a persona non grata, and the police will be called if they return. Clearly that doesn't apply to an online platform.

I think it is for emphasis and for clarity. It is to clarify that the ban isn't temporary. A ban could be revoked or it could have a time limit. Permanent means it can't be reverted. I wonder if 'suspended' might also link to the wording within their ToS, so that's why they use ban vs suspended.

To me, "suspending" sounds like something you do to accounts, and "banning" sounds more like something you do to people. In practice they're often interchangeable.

I agree. Also note that for something like a Youtube account there are records associated (e.g. media files, logs, followers) which "suspending" could imply the operator has not deleted, whereas "banning" seems more narrowly focused on taking away the communication privileges from user in question.

The best I can figure it is this: 'suspended' has a temporary sense, 'banned' has a permanent sense. While 'permanently banned' is a tautology, 'permanently suspended' is an oxymoron.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suspended

suspended = Caused to stop for a while; interrupted or delayed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banned

banned = Forbidden; not allowed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oxymoron

oxymoron = A figure of speech in which two words or phrases with opposing meanings are used together intentionally for effect.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tautology

tautology = Redundant use of words

On the other hand 'banned for [duration]' and 'temporary ban' have definitely been in use for a long time, which I personally have never thought seems wrong. If those uses are in play, 'permanently banned' can actually be motivated for disambiguation.

And I would suggest '[permanent] suspension' may have connotations of a statement about reversibility. 'We have the ability to reverse this action [but we intend not to exercise that ability, ever].'

As a native speaker, I've seen it too, and it's just wrong.

If you suspended someone and then said 'we're making your suspension permanent', it sounds like a 'cute'/think-you're-on-a-soap-opera way of saying 'you're now fired/expelled(/as applicable)'. Suspensions end. Even a suspension bridge for example is alluding to some temporal aspect, the natural outcome (gravity having its way) would be different.

Suspend means to literally hold up above the ground. A suspension bridge is called that because something is "above" it holding it up.

Yes. And when that thing ceases to hold it up, it will come crashing down.

Deplatforming works. That's why they are upset. Now when normal people scroll through YT they won't see 4chan content.

It works for the moment, but regardless of how you feel about the ethical debate here, the reality is that censorship resistant platforms will emerge to cater to the growing population of deplatformed/censored/banned/cancelled content creators and participants.

Whatever form that innovation takes, I wonder if it will ultimately be the new standard and we'll all ultimately be on it and be facing the same problem again.

All these communications platforms with any significant user base editorialise, even *chan, Parler, darknet sites, etc ven the ones that say they don't. Otherwise they'd be flooded with spam, griefing, child porn, moderate or left wing opinions, etc. That's why spammers have always been advocating for maximalist 'free speech' rights for access to platforms. Given this, it's simply up to each platform owner to determine their editorial policy.

It won't. Look at 4chan. It's one of the "free-est" platforms around and it's absolutely full to the brim of garbage that most people do not want to see. Let them build a cesspool for themselves, it's not going to draw a huge crowd as long as well moderated alternatives exist.

> he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded

How come this person has not been prosecuted yet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com