Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation.

Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders by showing ads to regular users in exchange for cash money.

Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.

World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter, who doesn't give a hoot about how they came to power. I doubt they'd deny an account to a Saudi prince, for example.

Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.

These two statements are mutually exclusive; if leaders are dependent on Twitter to get information out (they're not) then it ought to be run as a public utility in a truly open fashion. Meanwhile, someone being on or off Twitter would seem to have little impact on other people's ability to discuss their doings on Twitter.

But if we're to accept Twitter's stance, then political leaders ought not to be able to delete their tweets, since the purported necessity of seeing and debating them is undermined if they can retroactively edit the record of their own public statements.

We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly.

Twitter is absolutely not going to mess with anyone who could seize any of staff or assets by force, but would like to retain a shred of dignity.

No one person's account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.

Please think of Twitter as a public utility even though it is actually a for-profit business with a PR problem.

We are working to make Twitter the best place to see and freely discuss everything that matters. We believe that’s the best way to help our society make progress.

NYSE: TWTR has been in a 2 year trough since falling to ~1/3 of its 2014 high and would really like to like to have and eat its cake simultaneously, pretty please.

Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut Donald off, but it's clear that this post is just "We don't want to", but with a few paragraphs of spin. I wish they would be more honest about it.

Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.

The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made by the president.

“Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage.

That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.

I don't necessarily think his comments should be ignored, just treated like what they are: childish rants that don't have a strong connection to reality.

Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not.

It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't.

Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.

I don't think they should be getting rid of him, particularly - like other posters, I think he does more damage to himself politically via tweet than any of his opponents could.

But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk.

It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.

Twitter is there to make money for its shareholders

Everyone already knows Twitter isn't a charity. This fact does not mean that the company can't have a worthwhile purpose like "advancing the global, public conversation".

They don't have to choose one, they can have both.

World leaders are a cash cow for Twitter

So what? World leaders can also help defense contractors and kindergarten teachers. How does that affect whether their statements should visible for public conversation?

who could seize any of staff or assets by force

Are you fucking kidding me?

it's eat your cake and have it, not the other way round. Nice points though.

I think it's commutative :-)

Eating first is by far the more common usage. The Wikipedia article has a surprisingly thorough exploration of the historical usage of both variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and...

In response to your first comment, TWTR has never made a profit. Ever. Stopped reading your post after that because, you know, you’re wrong. Just saying

Having a goal of making money for shareholders and actually achieving that goal (making a profit) are two different, separable things. I can have a goal of running a marathon and be unable to. Both can be true without contradiction. (And following up with two tired memes doesn't add anything to further conversation constructively.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com