Hacker News Reader

Comment by objclxt | Hacker News Reader

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics

1. The second - and third, for that matter - most voted for President is Obama (69.5 and 65.9M votes). Trump is the fourth (62.9M votes)[1].

2. He was not banned because he wasn’t ‘their brand of politics’, he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms. You can certainly argue Twitter and Facebook had - and have - a very inconsistent enforcement approach for those policies. But that’s not what you are saying.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

View on HN

The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1]

Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public.

Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions.

For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)

Well, just like anything can be securities fraud, anything can be a political lie. It just depends on perspective.

Right, but Trump wasn't suspended for political lying. He was suspended for inciting violence. Political lying is not a violation of the terms of service, so far as I am aware.

And the other side can point to the congressional hearings that didn't conclude he directly incited any violence. It's a tit-for-tat sort of thing, which is incredibly dangerous when we're talking about how the general public is "allowed" to consume information.

My point, which you continually seem to miss or ignore, is this: Trump said things that could be construed as violating terms of service (even though congressional hearings did not conclude that he did incite violence). And so we're in a he said/she said situation - was it incitement to violence, or not? But even if you don't agree, you could see that Twitter could consider it incitement to violence without being completely insane or completely political.

Biden has not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything that could sanely be considered incitement to violence. Banning him would not be in the same category as banning Trump. It would be much more blatantly political, because the excuse would be much more transparent.

Has Biden not violated Facebook and Twitters TOS when he deliberately continues his messaging about the Georgia voting laws? If you spend 2 minutes reading the thing, you'll see his claims are false at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst.

Are we to just ban politics from these platforms wholesale?

Deliberate misinformation != incitement to violence. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Is lying against Twitter's TOS? If so, then you have a sensible point. But I kind of doubt that it is...

The spread of deliberate misinformation is banned on both Twitter and Facebook. Here's Facebooks[1]

    You may not use our Products to do or share anything:
        * That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.

Here's an entire section from Facebook regarding "False News"[2].

Joe Biden's rhetoric regarding the Georgia State voting laws is clearly 2-3 of those. Why has he not been banned yet?

And the incitement of violence thing has been debunked pretty clearly. If one guy at Twitter can decide something was inciteful just because that's their opinion - despite all evidence presented during Congressional Hearings, then we're far more lost than previously assumed.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/plain_text_terms

[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/false_news

"he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms" So technically Trump should be un-banned after claims of incitement were contested and disproved in congress, right?

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day." -Mitch McConnell

You and I and McConnell might agree, but the congress didnt. Moreover, Trump was calling for everyone to chill when he got banned, which to me indicates really bad risk management on behalf of twitter and fb. They risked further escalation to avoid responsibility.

Congress' opinion didn't matter in this case, Twitters did, and since its their TOS they said he violated, they were free to kick him off their website.

Ever read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? There’s a certain speech you might find enlightening if you think Trump was trying to cool things off with those tweets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com