“realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated due to human error”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated due to human error”
https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926238960594178048
219 comments
My guess is someone didn’t double-check the account name that had received 1000 abuse flags in the last half hour and just followed procedure.
My guess is that there are certain accounts that have separate procedures. Twitter is in the black this quarter for one reason - and I'm pretty sure its the @realDonaldTrump....
If your company was being propped up by 1 individual - wouldn't you put special procedures in place to make sure nothing inadvertent happened? (EDIT - GUESS NOT!! https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744)
As a side note: I started using Twitter a lot more to follow @realDonaldTrump. It doesn't matter what I think about him. The reality is we live in a new news paradigm where every POTUS tweet is news before the actual news writes about it. Thats powerful... I'll go straight to the source then...
If your company was being propped up by 1 individual - wouldn't you put special procedures in place to make sure nothing inadvertent happened? (EDIT - GUESS NOT!! https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744)
As a side note: I started using Twitter a lot more to follow @realDonaldTrump. It doesn't matter what I think about him. The reality is we live in a new news paradigm where every POTUS tweet is news before the actual news writes about it. Thats powerful... I'll go straight to the source then...
It’s not the source though. He basically posts his reactions to stuff he hears on Fox and Friends. It’s pretty well known that he can keep his attention on primary source briefings that every other president has relied upon before him.
Unless you count a thousand word CNN article about a short tweet as news. I don’t. I skip those articles because basically it’s just journalists being baited.
Unless you count a thousand word CNN article about a short tweet as news. I don’t. I skip those articles because basically it’s just journalists being baited.
Given the number of accounts that I've seen indefinitely suspended for a report storm that were honestly quite reasonable, this seems likely to me.
It looks like it was done by a customer support employee on their way out https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744
These replies... How'd they feel if their accounts were banned by a random Twitter employee (a secret Trump supporter or something)? It's like these people have no self-reflection at all.
If my account was occasionally fomenting international crises, perhaps it’d be justified.
I agree, it sucks. I also think its a good moment to step back and recognize the power we've granted these sites. People calling having your twitter account deactivated as being "kicked off the internet" sounds ludicrous to me, but it speaks to the power these sites have.
The lack of internal controls is incredible.
Highly influential people use Twitter to communicate. There should be controls to prevent influential or otherwise vulnerable people from access by insiders.
Highly influential people use Twitter to communicate. There should be controls to prevent influential or otherwise vulnerable people from access by insiders.
What I find interesting, is the sudden power Twitter just realised they have.
Imagine this, they are one button away from taking away the US president main mean of communication.
This is akin to a country doing a military parade, showing off their arms.
Imagine this, they are one button away from taking away the US president main mean of communication.
This is akin to a country doing a military parade, showing off their arms.
And just a few sentences away from declaring war.
If someone took over Trump's twitter and detailed how bombers were in-route to take out North Korea's nuclear capability, would Kim Jong Un wait for independent confirmation before he launched his missile(s)?
If someone took over Trump's twitter and detailed how bombers were in-route to take out North Korea's nuclear capability, would Kim Jong Un wait for independent confirmation before he launched his missile(s)?
This was really scary to read. I'd never realized this.
Never before has "2FA enabled" been more relevant.
Someone give that man a Yubikey
Well it's not just hackers we have to worry about though, but employees.
That's a compliance/governance issue. Working for a financial services utility in risk management, I would be shocked if any startup can do this properly.
Twitter is no startup.
“I would be shocked if any large immature tech company does it right” is what I should have said.
Show off those arms too much and regulation will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Just because Washington has been mostly hands off doesn't mean that will continue.
What do you think Washington would do? What power do you think they hold over Twitter in this case?
What would Washington do if they passed this bill and Twitter said "No, we aren't following it"? Fines. Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives.
So that's the worst case; the reality will be somewhere between that and doing nothing.
Within the bounds of the Constitution, Washington can regulate however its people's representatives see fit. Over the past 20 years, most people have sided with companies like Google and Facebook because they produce products that are amazing and addicting. This tide is changing; their products are becoming less and less novel, and its becoming increasingly apparent that horribly few of these companies act with any sense of ethical responsibility or discretion.
So that's the worst case; the reality will be somewhere between that and doing nothing.
Within the bounds of the Constitution, Washington can regulate however its people's representatives see fit. Over the past 20 years, most people have sided with companies like Google and Facebook because they produce products that are amazing and addicting. This tide is changing; their products are becoming less and less novel, and its becoming increasingly apparent that horribly few of these companies act with any sense of ethical responsibility or discretion.
I can’t help but think the better option would be a bill saying that POTUS needs to stay off social media, no?
He also has freedom of speech.
And, possibly moreso than anyone else, the responsibility for the actions caused by his words. Freedom of speech is all good until you start yelling "Bomb" on an airplane. This guy is possibly talking us ALL into a nuclear war. I dont know about you, but I don't like being forced into the next persons fight becuase they couldnt shut their mouth, boss, mayor, friend, or Trump...
This is not a realistic fear. Nobody’s going to war over a tweet.
Saying the POTUS can't use twitter is not taking away their freedom of speech -- it's putting controls around what mediums they're allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. Kinda like how they're not supposed to run their own mail server.
Do you really think it's in the nations best interest that _Twitter_ is being treated as an official source of news from the POTUS?
Do you really think it's in the nations best interest that _Twitter_ is being treated as an official source of news from the POTUS?
I think it’s absolutely in the nations best interest that the president has a way to get his message out directly without filtering by the corporate media. It’s a lot harder to misconstrue someone’s words when anyone can look at them (and better yet- passively see them, rather than having to go looking)
Whether Twitter is the best medium for that is another question, given the character limits and demonstrated unprofessional behavior by the platform owner. I bet his account gets a lot more exposure there than a page on whitehouse.gov would.
Whether Twitter is the best medium for that is another question, given the character limits and demonstrated unprofessional behavior by the platform owner. I bet his account gets a lot more exposure there than a page on whitehouse.gov would.
> Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives.
I think Google's managing director in Brazil was arrested a couple times for refusing to give some information to Brazilian law enforcement or refusing to remove some content.
I think Google's managing director in Brazil was arrested a couple times for refusing to give some information to Brazilian law enforcement or refusing to remove some content.
I get that Trump used Twitter a lot but he does have a press office where actual stuff happens.
The whole scandal though is that he actively dodges the WHPC to distribute information.
Already admitted allegedly to doing some odd coverups for HRC: https://swarajyamag.com/insta/twitter-censored-hashtags-crit...
A bunch of tweets disappeared from my Twitter account in early March of this year without any reason or trace. I had them cached on Twitter mobile app so I had the proof it's not my imagination. I reached out to Twitter support, didn't get any reply and wasn't able to figure out what happened :/
From my experience, you have to be very, very loud if you want to reach them.
This is how I managed to reach them in July: https://twitter.com/i/moments/878356515622617088
This is how I managed to reach them in July: https://twitter.com/i/moments/878356515622617088
"Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee’s last day. We are conducting a full internal review."
https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744
https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744
Curious to know how locked down permissions are at Twitter for this type of thing. After yesterday's news about RT & Twitter, I'm wary of the potential personal involvement Twitter has with US politics & Trump.
Seems a bit weird that one employee can inadvertently deactivate such a big account by mistake. You would think there are double checks in place, warnings etc
...
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
There probably are checks in place. My bet is on an employee's joke.
You would need to be remarkably stupid and/or immature to switch off a primary communication channel of the elected leader of 320 million people as a "joke", regardless of what you think of Trump.
You would need to be remarkably stupid and/or immature to use Twitter as your primary communication channel, as an elected leader of 320 million people.
I'd give 'em a high five. And buy them a beer after they got rightly fired.
They might not be around to buy a beer. I'm sure the Secret Service/FBI could trump up some kind of Federal charges for such a thing.
Or maybe someone on the way out with nothing to lose?
I would think it's an automation gone bad. Maybe too many complaints?
No stretch of the imagination to parse "inadvertently deactivated due to human error" as equating to "internal sabotage for the cause of rebellion" ;)
I can recommend PBS Frontline's doc "Putin's Revenge" for deep background on how we got to where we are today. It's fascinating to see "unintended consequences" of a series of US foreign policy decisions: Libya, Sochi 2014 Ukraine protests, an "f-bomb" in a a random diplomatic cable. Lead to a compounding of grievances for Moscow. And how pushback was inevitable.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-revenge/
TBH I was decidedly underwhelmed by Twitter general counsel's testimony before the Senate judiciary. Just really unserious, lacking an appreciation of the gravity of the situation. Social media was weaponized by a foreign power to sow dissent, destabilize democracy and ultimately weaken American influence abroad.
Regardless of your personal politics, the narrative has morphed into a national security issue. An that means every startup or internet based company. Basically everyone. Needs to have a security policy in place to avoid persecution and or liability.
I can recommend PBS Frontline's doc "Putin's Revenge" for deep background on how we got to where we are today. It's fascinating to see "unintended consequences" of a series of US foreign policy decisions: Libya, Sochi 2014 Ukraine protests, an "f-bomb" in a a random diplomatic cable. Lead to a compounding of grievances for Moscow. And how pushback was inevitable.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-revenge/
TBH I was decidedly underwhelmed by Twitter general counsel's testimony before the Senate judiciary. Just really unserious, lacking an appreciation of the gravity of the situation. Social media was weaponized by a foreign power to sow dissent, destabilize democracy and ultimately weaken American influence abroad.
Regardless of your personal politics, the narrative has morphed into a national security issue. An that means every startup or internet based company. Basically everyone. Needs to have a security policy in place to avoid persecution and or liability.
>Social media was weaponized by a foreign power to sow dissent, destabilize democracy...
We need to stop this nonsense. The Russians spent a few hundred thousand on social media ads in this election cycle, and frankly a lot of them explicitly supported Progressive causes. Meanwhile, Trump and Clinton spent $81 million. Scroll Facebook for 90 seconds and you'll probably see a dozen ads "impressed" on you. Can you remember a single one? Three?
>...and ultimately weaken American influence abroad.
Seems like we've been happily doing that ourselves for quite a while now.
We need to stop this nonsense. The Russians spent a few hundred thousand on social media ads in this election cycle, and frankly a lot of them explicitly supported Progressive causes. Meanwhile, Trump and Clinton spent $81 million. Scroll Facebook for 90 seconds and you'll probably see a dozen ads "impressed" on you. Can you remember a single one? Three?
>...and ultimately weaken American influence abroad.
Seems like we've been happily doing that ourselves for quite a while now.
The irony of American officials complaining about foreign interference really is amazingly delicious. STFU, hypocrites, and start looking in the mirror. There is half a century of global interference to look back on.
Given how e.g. reddit's news and political subs turned into a Hillary fort right as she was pumping millions into her own social media ops, I have zero sympathy for their crocodile tears. They don't hate the Russians for doing this, they hate them because their own attempts at it failed and backfired, and they need a scapegoat.
Given how e.g. reddit's news and political subs turned into a Hillary fort right as she was pumping millions into her own social media ops, I have zero sympathy for their crocodile tears. They don't hate the Russians for doing this, they hate them because their own attempts at it failed and backfired, and they need a scapegoat.
> Social media was weaponized by a foreign power to sow dissent,
Surely, there was no dissent sown on Twitter and other social media before Putin thought about using it.
Surely, there was no dissent sown on Twitter and other social media before Putin thought about using it.
Is that the point of what this person is saying?
Basically, yes. Twitter and other social media had a lot of disturbing, hateful and abusive content long before one of the parties in the US lost the elections and decided to blame Putin for that. And feeble efforts of a bunch of paid trolls change nothing in that. The only threat to the democracy is attempts to control online speech because otherwise scary Russian will ruin our democracy. I hope the democracy is a bit stronger than one that a bunch of trolls speaking bad English and 100k investment in ads could ruin it. And if anything is scary in Twitter GC testimony it is the admission that they already exercised political censorship, suppressing certain content (such as talk about Podesta emails) but apparently not enough.
> one of the parties in the US lost the elections and decided to blame Putin for that.
Russian involvement was widely reported and under investigation before voting began; it was not a post hoc rationalization for election defeat (in fact, the election defeat has, AFAICT, been blamed more frequently on Comey’s interference than Putin’s; the Russian intervention and apparent active collaboration has gotten more attention because it's viewed as more serious of an set of action s, not because the losing party painted it as decisive.)
Russian involvement was widely reported and under investigation before voting began; it was not a post hoc rationalization for election defeat (in fact, the election defeat has, AFAICT, been blamed more frequently on Comey’s interference than Putin’s; the Russian intervention and apparent active collaboration has gotten more attention because it's viewed as more serious of an set of action s, not because the losing party painted it as decisive.)
> Russian involvement was widely reported
Sure. UFO sightings were widely reported to. Protip: not everything you read on the internet is true. There's a lot of bullshit out there, and a lot of people whose job depends on peddling bullshit and making people believe it. Some of them are Russians, but there are more than enough of them right in the US.
> it was not a post hoc rationalization for election defeat (in fact, the election defeat has, AFAICT, been blamed more frequently on Comey’s interference than Putin’s
It was blamed on anything except the actual performance of the candidates, as usual. Because taking responsibility is not something politicians do. Both Comey and Putin featured prominently.
> the Russian intervention and apparent active collaboration
Intervention in what? Collaboration with what? It is very symptomatic that object-less phrases are used to describe that - it creates nefarious aura without presenting a claim that can be verified. Russians "interfered" with what? They spent 100k or so on ads? It's peanuts, Hillary campaign spent 1bn+ overall - you are saying they couldn't beat Russian 100k with that? If that were true, that would be a sign on incompetence so gross that one has to wonder how they are putting on their shoes in the morning. However, it is baloney - Russian trolls had no traceable effect except show some stupid (and look it up, they are stupid) ads to a bunch of people.
Ah yes, there also is the question of stealing and publishing some emails (there were several cases) - some of which may or may not be obtained by Russians (public evidence so far is beyond shoddy and basically is "trust us, we know it's Russians" and can not be independently evaluated). But that part - and especially the part where Dems staunchly refused to give FBI access to their networks to investigate what exactly happened - somehow is not discussed that much. E.g. how comes their IT practices were so shoddy that they fell for a primitive phishing scam? What does it say about IT security of people who are supposed to handle the ultra-top-secret materials and still don't seem to give a damn about security? Etc. No, it's better to blame Putin and Twitter of course than discuss this.
> not because the losing party painted it as decisive.
Which they definitely did and continue to do so.
Sure. UFO sightings were widely reported to. Protip: not everything you read on the internet is true. There's a lot of bullshit out there, and a lot of people whose job depends on peddling bullshit and making people believe it. Some of them are Russians, but there are more than enough of them right in the US.
> it was not a post hoc rationalization for election defeat (in fact, the election defeat has, AFAICT, been blamed more frequently on Comey’s interference than Putin’s
It was blamed on anything except the actual performance of the candidates, as usual. Because taking responsibility is not something politicians do. Both Comey and Putin featured prominently.
> the Russian intervention and apparent active collaboration
Intervention in what? Collaboration with what? It is very symptomatic that object-less phrases are used to describe that - it creates nefarious aura without presenting a claim that can be verified. Russians "interfered" with what? They spent 100k or so on ads? It's peanuts, Hillary campaign spent 1bn+ overall - you are saying they couldn't beat Russian 100k with that? If that were true, that would be a sign on incompetence so gross that one has to wonder how they are putting on their shoes in the morning. However, it is baloney - Russian trolls had no traceable effect except show some stupid (and look it up, they are stupid) ads to a bunch of people.
Ah yes, there also is the question of stealing and publishing some emails (there were several cases) - some of which may or may not be obtained by Russians (public evidence so far is beyond shoddy and basically is "trust us, we know it's Russians" and can not be independently evaluated). But that part - and especially the part where Dems staunchly refused to give FBI access to their networks to investigate what exactly happened - somehow is not discussed that much. E.g. how comes their IT practices were so shoddy that they fell for a primitive phishing scam? What does it say about IT security of people who are supposed to handle the ultra-top-secret materials and still don't seem to give a damn about security? Etc. No, it's better to blame Putin and Twitter of course than discuss this.
> not because the losing party painted it as decisive.
Which they definitely did and continue to do so.
I'm really disheartened to hear this rhetoric on HN, but I'm not surprised given the affinity for contrarianism here. Russia has developed a track record of(trying to) interfere in elections over the last decade+, this isn't some new concept that was conjured out of thin air. They aren't some misunderstood good guy that's being scapegoated. Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
It would be one thing if it were only the handful of goofy ads you've seen, but in actuality a lot of the far right's sound bites and "gotcha's" leading up to the election - even those parroted by the President himself - came from the sorts of fake news mills that spun up during that time, a number of which can be traced to Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
It would be one thing if it were only the handful of goofy ads you've seen, but in actuality a lot of the far right's sound bites and "gotcha's" leading up to the election - even those parroted by the President himself - came from the sorts of fake news mills that spun up during that time, a number of which can be traced to Russia.
It's immature and doesn't rise beyond the maker's biases. Putin is certainly a Machiavellian figure and certainly not a good person but that is an incomplete picture which this "documentary" doesn't even attempt to uncover.
pbs video...“Not available in your region due to right restriction”. He-he, so much to the freedom of speech!
PBS is a non-profit non-governmental entity. It has no obligation to follow the bill of rights.
If nothing else this points to poor internal controls on user accounts at Twitter.
I would imagine most people in traditional IT roles would find some jaw droppers if they spent a day at Twitter HQ.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Kind of interesting that Trump’s account is worth so much to Twitter, and they seem to care so little.
Trump is probably the best thing to happen to Twitter in some time. His tweets are the only reason I even see tweets anymore in my life.
So it's funny when I see the CEO use Twitter to attack Trump.
So it's funny when I see the CEO use Twitter to attack Trump.
On the contrary. Besides this "mistake", the main reason why this account has not been banned is because they REALLY care about this account.
Other than this freak occurrence, which was remedied immediately and publicly apologized-for, what else does Twitter do that makes you think they "care so little"?
Due to the fact that the account appears to have violated Twitter rules many times and still exists shows that Twitter cares about the account very much. Many accounts have been banned for much less. Even somewhat high profile accounts.
TBH, I've had a Twitter account since 2009, but the only reason I will visit their site once a day now is to check DT's Twitter feed to see if I have to watch out for anything that will impact (a) my industry (b) the financial markets and (c) world peace. No word of a lie.
Twitter is probably marking off my visits as a solid 'daily user activity - this person keeps coming back to our platform within 24 hours on a regular basis'. But aside from checking his feed (and sometimes getting drawn into a senseless argument thread), I rarely post my own stuff on there any more as it is just a futile exercise in shouting at the void.
Twitter is probably marking off my visits as a solid 'daily user activity - this person keeps coming back to our platform within 24 hours on a regular basis'. But aside from checking his feed (and sometimes getting drawn into a senseless argument thread), I rarely post my own stuff on there any more as it is just a futile exercise in shouting at the void.
Honestly the right will freak out about this and scream some form of left wing censorship, but...
The first amendment only extends to government laws. Twitter, as a private entity has no obligation or legal requirement to give hateful speech a soapbox, even when it's promoted by the "leader of the free world."
They would lose millions of users, but they might ultimately provide a net benefit to the future of western democracy if they simply banned Donald Trump from twitter.
The first amendment only extends to government laws. Twitter, as a private entity has no obligation or legal requirement to give hateful speech a soapbox, even when it's promoted by the "leader of the free world."
They would lose millions of users, but they might ultimately provide a net benefit to the future of western democracy if they simply banned Donald Trump from twitter.
I see arguments like this from time to time about free speech, and it always strikes me as missing the point or being myopic.
Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.
Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.
On the other hand, Twitter also has a right to free speech. They're perfectly within their rights to promote their own opinions or viewpoints. I would assume that also includes the right to selectively amplify the voices of other based on agreeing with their viewpoints.
Because Twitter is a platform for the communication of others, they find themselves in an ironic situation: adhering to the principle of free speech means giving up, or at least severely restricting, their own ability to exercise that right. I think it would be noble of them to accept that restriction voluntarily, but it would be problematic if it were required of them.
Because Twitter is a platform for the communication of others, they find themselves in an ironic situation: adhering to the principle of free speech means giving up, or at least severely restricting, their own ability to exercise that right. I think it would be noble of them to accept that restriction voluntarily, but it would be problematic if it were required of them.
You make it seem like you disagree with the person you’re replying to. But don’t you see? You agree with him. That exactly what he’s saying: what Twitter legally can do is different than what they should do.
It sounds like I'm disagreeing with the person because I'm disagreeing with the person. I don't think that what Twitter can do and what they should do are at variance, because I don't think Twitter has a moral obligation to allow others freedom of expression on their tool.
Even if Twitter wanted to promote freedom of expression, there's an inherent contradiction between allowing others to express their opinion and them expressing their own opinion. I think someone whose promotion of freedom of expression involves denying themselves that same freedom is sending a mixed message. Because their support of the principle would have those reservations, they don't have an obligation to provide it.
Even if Twitter wanted to promote freedom of expression, there's an inherent contradiction between allowing others to express their opinion and them expressing their own opinion. I think someone whose promotion of freedom of expression involves denying themselves that same freedom is sending a mixed message. Because their support of the principle would have those reservations, they don't have an obligation to provide it.
I don't really think you're disagreeing. If Twitter wants to promote free expression, which I would think of as supporting the ideal of free speech, then they shouldn't ban Trump. If Twitter wants to ban Trump then they are in conflict with the ideal of free speech, or in your terms they aren't promoting freedom of expression by banning Trump.
Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.
Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.
Yeah but it's their infrastructure, servers, their policy, their rules. As a company they might not give a crap about the ideal of free speech. Especially if they don't have any competitors in the market. They might bear the consequence of applying their rules or squashing some speech and not other, by people deleting their accounts, or press writing mean things about them. But they are free to make that trade-off.
The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.
The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.
Sure. If they don't care about free speech, that's their prerogative. I'm saying you can be critical of Twitter on that basis, and it would be no defense against criticism to observe that they aren't legally required to care about free speech.
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important.
Currently basically facedesking at never coming up with this phrasing of it myself. Filed under "good enough that it's obvious as soon as you've seen it".
Thank you.
Currently basically facedesking at never coming up with this phrasing of it myself. Filed under "good enough that it's obvious as soon as you've seen it".
Thank you.
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important.
Also for almost everyone on Earth it's not "in the constitution" because we don't live in the US.
Also for almost everyone on Earth it's not "in the constitution" because we don't live in the US.
And yet, free speech is still important even to those who don't have such protections codified into law.
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important.
Actually it's in the Constitution because it's important for a different reason than most people think.
If you read the Bill of Rights carefully (and I mean thinking about the reasons behind them and their implications and interpretations over time, beyond what you see in school) you gradually come to realize that they were not meant to be declarations of your rights at all. (This is very much in contrast to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is such a thing.) Rather, they have been very much intended to be protections against the government, i.e. limitations on what the government can do.
This is not obvious, and it has nontrivial implications.
The 5th amendment is the clearest example of this, but this theme goes across all the amendments. The "right against self-incrimination" is not actually declaring a fundamental right. Ever think about why there would there be such a right? It's surely not the kind of thing I'd think of when writing a Constitution, and the same is probably true for you. Furthermore, if it's a right, then why does it go away once you are given immunity? And why doesn't it exist for other people (even those in your own family)? The reason that right exists is that they wanted to protect against torture, which was used to extract forced confessions, and they decided to grant this right to reach that goal. Otherwise, they did not by any means believe that it would be somehow wrong for a judge to compel you to produce testimony. That's why the right is so limited: it doesn't apply to testifying against other people, nor does it apply to yourself once you have immunity. Yet most people don't realize this and think it's there because it's somehow deemed to be a human right.
The same goes for the freedoms of speech, press, association, and the right to bear arms, etc... those are, again, meant to protect against common practices of oppressive governments. They are not declarations of intrinsic human rights. It's probably a somewhat radical departure from what you've learned, but I think it's worth realizing this. In particular, it implies even more strongly that the right to free speech was NOT imagined to be something that anyone but the government should worry about.
Actually it's in the Constitution because it's important for a different reason than most people think.
If you read the Bill of Rights carefully (and I mean thinking about the reasons behind them and their implications and interpretations over time, beyond what you see in school) you gradually come to realize that they were not meant to be declarations of your rights at all. (This is very much in contrast to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is such a thing.) Rather, they have been very much intended to be protections against the government, i.e. limitations on what the government can do.
This is not obvious, and it has nontrivial implications.
The 5th amendment is the clearest example of this, but this theme goes across all the amendments. The "right against self-incrimination" is not actually declaring a fundamental right. Ever think about why there would there be such a right? It's surely not the kind of thing I'd think of when writing a Constitution, and the same is probably true for you. Furthermore, if it's a right, then why does it go away once you are given immunity? And why doesn't it exist for other people (even those in your own family)? The reason that right exists is that they wanted to protect against torture, which was used to extract forced confessions, and they decided to grant this right to reach that goal. Otherwise, they did not by any means believe that it would be somehow wrong for a judge to compel you to produce testimony. That's why the right is so limited: it doesn't apply to testifying against other people, nor does it apply to yourself once you have immunity. Yet most people don't realize this and think it's there because it's somehow deemed to be a human right.
The same goes for the freedoms of speech, press, association, and the right to bear arms, etc... those are, again, meant to protect against common practices of oppressive governments. They are not declarations of intrinsic human rights. It's probably a somewhat radical departure from what you've learned, but I think it's worth realizing this. In particular, it implies even more strongly that the right to free speech was NOT imagined to be something that anyone but the government should worry about.
The right against self-incrimination enshrines a personal right that developed under English Common Law in response to Star Chamber inquisitions. It's not about oppressive governments, per se, but rather a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself--tell the truth and face death, or lie and face eternal damnation. It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age. Every lawyer at the constitutional convention would have been well aware of it, as at that time there weren't too many such unequivocal rights. See, e.g., http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstract...
The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments were basically lifted directly from established English legislative and common law. That Americans were regularly denied the benefit of these laws was one of the primary grievances of the colonies, so they basically just copy+pasted them into the Bill of Rights.
As for the 1st amendment, I'm sure you've noticed that it's worded in the negative, and that's because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. States were free to oppress speech and enforce religious laws. And that they did, and few thought those states inherently oppressive. At the time it was thought that such laws restricting speech, enforcing a state religion, etc, if chosen democratically, were tolerable. Protection from the tyranny of the majority hadn't yet become the predominate way to understand these newly declared individual rights. Rather, what most concerned the convention members was that the federal government not have the power to interfere with the democratic balance struck at the state level. Nonetheless, the wording of various state constitutions make it clear that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were considered as much an individual right as any other.
It's useful to understand that our modern notion of free speech as one of our most inviolable rights is _very_ recent. Oddly, it's perhaps one of the most recent innovations in American constitutional law, succeeded only by criminal procedural rights like Miranda rights. Until circa 1930, when Brandeis and Holmes kicked-off a reconceptualization of free speech, the right to free speech was understood much as it's still understood in Europe--highly qualified and subject to reasonable, democratically chosen restrictions. Before the modern era, states regularly (and legally) jailed abolitionists, unionists, communists, and others, simply for speaking in public or passing out literature; and not because they lacked a license, but for the actual content of their speech.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments were basically lifted directly from established English legislative and common law. That Americans were regularly denied the benefit of these laws was one of the primary grievances of the colonies, so they basically just copy+pasted them into the Bill of Rights.
As for the 1st amendment, I'm sure you've noticed that it's worded in the negative, and that's because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. States were free to oppress speech and enforce religious laws. And that they did, and few thought those states inherently oppressive. At the time it was thought that such laws restricting speech, enforcing a state religion, etc, if chosen democratically, were tolerable. Protection from the tyranny of the majority hadn't yet become the predominate way to understand these newly declared individual rights. Rather, what most concerned the convention members was that the federal government not have the power to interfere with the democratic balance struck at the state level. Nonetheless, the wording of various state constitutions make it clear that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were considered as much an individual right as any other.
It's useful to understand that our modern notion of free speech as one of our most inviolable rights is _very_ recent. Oddly, it's perhaps one of the most recent innovations in American constitutional law, succeeded only by criminal procedural rights like Miranda rights. Until circa 1930, when Brandeis and Holmes kicked-off a reconceptualization of free speech, the right to free speech was understood much as it's still understood in Europe--highly qualified and subject to reasonable, democratically chosen restrictions. Before the modern era, states regularly (and legally) jailed abolitionists, unionists, communists, and others, simply for speaking in public or passing out literature; and not because they lacked a license, but for the actual content of their speech.
[deleted]
Yes, the Star Chamber was exactly what I was referring to (I even wrote it but ended up erasing it). Your arguments don't follow, though.
First, you say:
> It's about a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself
and then you say
> It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age
First, something being immoral doesn't imply that the opposite of it is a human right. Many people believe revenge is immoral but don't believe it to be a violation of their human rights. Not donating to charity might be immoral to many people but they wouldn't consider there to be a human right to take money from others. etc.
Second, we're not talking about English law either. These people were fleeing from English law and establishing their religious freedom. So it's fair to assume their biggest worry in the 5th amendment wasn't religion or God, but rather the government.
And third, your own source contradicts what you said. They clearly say courts relied on the the maxim (that “no man is bound to accuse himself”) as a protest against the unjust methods used to extract confessions. i.e., it wasn't that they viewed it as a human right in any sense, but that they began to invoke this maxim to avoid extracting forced (and hence potentially false) confessions. Which supports exactly what I said. (And note the use of "unjust" rather than "immoral" -- it's not about morality, but about administering justice. Religion and morality weren't new concepts then, and it's not like they avoided it initially due to moral reasons or suddenly avoided it due to feeling guilty.)
I don't have time to make a longer response to the rest of what you said, but the negative wording itself is further evidence that they were worried about government behavior and not trying to declare what is considered a fundamental human right (or trying to even "advisingly" prescribe good behavior for private individuals for that matter). I'm baffled at how you say things that align directly with this and then draw the opposite conclusions. If you're going to use the state constitutions as evidence, they're not going to be evidence for what the federal Constitution says. They can of course be evidence for what they themselves say, and nowhere do I argue that state constitutions do or don't declare anything as a fundamental right.
First, you say:
> It's about a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself
and then you say
> It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age
First, something being immoral doesn't imply that the opposite of it is a human right. Many people believe revenge is immoral but don't believe it to be a violation of their human rights. Not donating to charity might be immoral to many people but they wouldn't consider there to be a human right to take money from others. etc.
Second, we're not talking about English law either. These people were fleeing from English law and establishing their religious freedom. So it's fair to assume their biggest worry in the 5th amendment wasn't religion or God, but rather the government.
And third, your own source contradicts what you said. They clearly say courts relied on the the maxim (that “no man is bound to accuse himself”) as a protest against the unjust methods used to extract confessions. i.e., it wasn't that they viewed it as a human right in any sense, but that they began to invoke this maxim to avoid extracting forced (and hence potentially false) confessions. Which supports exactly what I said. (And note the use of "unjust" rather than "immoral" -- it's not about morality, but about administering justice. Religion and morality weren't new concepts then, and it's not like they avoided it initially due to moral reasons or suddenly avoided it due to feeling guilty.)
I don't have time to make a longer response to the rest of what you said, but the negative wording itself is further evidence that they were worried about government behavior and not trying to declare what is considered a fundamental human right (or trying to even "advisingly" prescribe good behavior for private individuals for that matter). I'm baffled at how you say things that align directly with this and then draw the opposite conclusions. If you're going to use the state constitutions as evidence, they're not going to be evidence for what the federal Constitution says. They can of course be evidence for what they themselves say, and nowhere do I argue that state constitutions do or don't declare anything as a fundamental right.
Heh? It is also part of their political speech to keep or delete his account. That is an equally important aspect of the free speech right -- the option to allow one's property to be used for a certain type of speech, or not. Not saying I think they should or shouldn't, but you can't evaluate the free speech implications of their deleting his account while only considering his free speech rights. Theirs are equally important.
Twitter and other social media networks should be seen as common carriers and not interfere with what people post. Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech on their own twitter account, not by censoring other users.
It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.
It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.
Why is that ideal? Social media censors dangerous / disruptive (to the community) shit all the time, which is appropriate IMO.
> Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.
Even the "ideal" of free speech refers only to speech on public property outside of the control an organization. There is no ideal of free speech that says a) you should be able to say whatever you want on private property, or b) that organizations should sanction members for speech they do not approve of.
Twitter is well within the ideal of free speech should they choose to kick Donald Trump off their site, on the grounds of a) not liking what he uses their private property to say, and b) wanting to sanction him as a member (i.e. user) of their organization for what he says.
Of course, the ideal of free speech and what's written in the constitution are synonymous, as far as the American ideal of free speech is concerned. Different nations have different ideals.
Even the "ideal" of free speech refers only to speech on public property outside of the control an organization. There is no ideal of free speech that says a) you should be able to say whatever you want on private property, or b) that organizations should sanction members for speech they do not approve of.
Twitter is well within the ideal of free speech should they choose to kick Donald Trump off their site, on the grounds of a) not liking what he uses their private property to say, and b) wanting to sanction him as a member (i.e. user) of their organization for what he says.
Of course, the ideal of free speech and what's written in the constitution are synonymous, as far as the American ideal of free speech is concerned. Different nations have different ideals.
No, the ideal of free speech is that you should get to express yourself, and I should get to express myself. Through discussion we may gain common understanding and benefit. We can discover unfamiliar perspectives, debate ideas, and figure out meaningful truths. We both will also appreciate the opportunity to have our thoughts heard - whatever they may be.
Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal.
Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.
Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal.
Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.
Twitter's brand is being public. As far as I can tell, Twitter survives on a revolving cycle of celebrity and news coverage. They almost went broke until the world's biggest celebrity (POTUS) brought their popularity back.
So when people express outrage about Twitter restricting speech, it's the same emotion as RadioShack selling their customer list - not as advertised.
So when people express outrage about Twitter restricting speech, it's the same emotion as RadioShack selling their customer list - not as advertised.
So they should be required to keep his account up no matter what happens?
They should be able to remove his account and decide not to.
That’s not what he said. If I say “Twitter should not ban shepardrtc”, I am not saying that Twitter should not ban you no matter what you do.
As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news.
Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?
As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news.
Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?
I agree that they should treat his account differently, but in the other direction. The fact that his words matter so much means they should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
but a higher standard of what? His words will be more scrutinized but beyond that should a higher standard of censorship be implored? If that's the underlying suggestion than who's this arbiter of good speech and how might that go about working?
[deleted]
"No matter what happens" is a ridiculous condition, and I think you know that. However, from Twitter's about page:
> Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....
> Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....
What would be an example of something they should take his account down for that would otherwise be legal to post?
[deleted]
Free speech means that the GOVERNMENT can't put you in jail for speaking your mind.
It doesn't mean that every single web platform or private place is supposed to tolerate or let you practice your free speech.
It doesn't mean that every single web platform or private place is supposed to tolerate or let you practice your free speech.
No, they would not be violating any "ideal of free speech", and if you think this, you still haven't understood what First Amendment rights are actually about.
[deleted]
The ideal of free speech is not violated by twitter banning someone's account due to abusive behavior. It's violated when you apply military or police force to repress people. That's why it's in the constitution. That's why those constitutional restrictions apply to the government and not to private entities.
Is there precedent for that? As in has there been other leaders whose twitter accounts have been taken down in the past for ordering military/police forces to do things?
Other leaders realize that they aren't actually using the proper channels when giving 'orders' on Twitter and generally don't even attempt to do so, so probably no, Trump is uniquely unqualified.
What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?
I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.
Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323...
Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480
Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480
You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job.
Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below:
1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations.
2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then.
3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but...
4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers.
Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me.
Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast.
I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below:
1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations.
2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then.
3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but...
4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers.
Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me.
Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast.
I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
You know you can reply to people directly, right? It makes conversations flow much better than reply-by-edit.
I would really like to see your explanation for (4) given the constitution explicitly only gives the authority for a declaration of war to Congress (Article I, Section 8 in case you need the reference).
Regarding (1), if the president continues to bluff, then no nation can accurately gauge his or the US's intention. Continuing to threaten, but not seek out approval for, war only encourages NK (and others) behavior because they are increasingly confident he's all bark and no bite.
I would really like to see your explanation for (4) given the constitution explicitly only gives the authority for a declaration of war to Congress (Article I, Section 8 in case you need the reference).
Regarding (1), if the president continues to bluff, then no nation can accurately gauge his or the US's intention. Continuing to threaten, but not seek out approval for, war only encourages NK (and others) behavior because they are increasingly confident he's all bark and no bite.
No. His job is not "applying military leverage". If Congress grants him the permission to go to war with a country, then he can apply the military. Otherwise, no. That is not his job.
His job is to command the military over twitter?
No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.
That's not diplomacy, it's bullying. There is a distinction.
I don't think you know what "explicit" means.
"explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt"
If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.
Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.
What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.
So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.
> The first amendment only extends to government laws.
Much to my surprise I found out today that the first amendment does actually sometimes extend past the government to private companies. Here [0] is one case where the supreme court found it did, and here [1] is the reddit thread where this came up, about a lawsuit which (amongst other claims) argues that YouTube has managed to fall afoul of the first amendment.
I make no claim that the first amendment would plausibly expand to twitter in this case, I suspect not. I suspect that it would, at most, make it legal for Trump to violate the TOS and create a new account or something. I am not a lawyer, have not read all the relevant rulings, and am certainly not qualified to give legal advice on this.
[0] https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/7abbas/prageru_sues_yo...
Much to my surprise I found out today that the first amendment does actually sometimes extend past the government to private companies. Here [0] is one case where the supreme court found it did, and here [1] is the reddit thread where this came up, about a lawsuit which (amongst other claims) argues that YouTube has managed to fall afoul of the first amendment.
I make no claim that the first amendment would plausibly expand to twitter in this case, I suspect not. I suspect that it would, at most, make it legal for Trump to violate the TOS and create a new account or something. I am not a lawyer, have not read all the relevant rulings, and am certainly not qualified to give legal advice on this.
[0] https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/7abbas/prageru_sues_yo...
Not really the same thing. In your first link, the court found that, for environmental reasons, the areas where the picketers were located should be considered public space, and therefore First Amendment protections apply. They're not claiming that the company must uphold people's 1A rights, but that the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.
(In addition, I believe acts like picketing an employer are specifically protected by law.)
(In addition, I believe acts like picketing an employer are specifically protected by law.)
> In your first link, the court found that, for environmental reasons, the areas where the picketers were located should be considered public space, and therefore First Amendment protections apply. They're not claiming that the company must uphold people's 1A rights
Yes, that was my interpretation as well (and goes toward my comment about it at most justifying violating the TOS).
> the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.
No... I don't think that that is a fair statement of the conclusion. The conclusion is rather that given that they have chosen to let their property be used as a public space the state can't apply the law it's power (i.e. enforce laws) in a way that would violate their right to speak (picket).
While there may be acts specifically protecting picketing (I don't know) the opinion doesn't seem to be about any such acts.
Yes, that was my interpretation as well (and goes toward my comment about it at most justifying violating the TOS).
> the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.
No... I don't think that that is a fair statement of the conclusion. The conclusion is rather that given that they have chosen to let their property be used as a public space the state can't apply the law it's power (i.e. enforce laws) in a way that would violate their right to speak (picket).
While there may be acts specifically protecting picketing (I don't know) the opinion doesn't seem to be about any such acts.
The case in question: https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...
Err, this is literally the same link as my [0]?
I completely disagree. Taking away diversity of political thought is an incredibly dangerous thing. The right is performing a very useful role in playing devil’s advocate - there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on the left, and it’s important to have people calling it what it is.
And no, Trump’s daily tweets aren’t hate speech. I think he’s an idiot, but he’s not spouting hate speech on there.
And no, Trump’s daily tweets aren’t hate speech. I think he’s an idiot, but he’s not spouting hate speech on there.
The extreme left has no voice in this country. Nobody with any power is talking about collectivizing farms or nationalizing industries.
Meanwhile the extreme right has immense power. Mainstream politicians talk about prosecuting the press, carrying out mass murder and other war crimes to crush our enemies, and making law based on their ideas of religion.
I agree that we need diversity of political thought, but I see the problem as being in the opposite direction: there are almost no left-of-center voices being heard. Bernie Sanders is just about the only one, and he barely qualifies.
We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party. The latter isn't playing devil's advocate in any useful way, they're just attracting the crazy.
Meanwhile the extreme right has immense power. Mainstream politicians talk about prosecuting the press, carrying out mass murder and other war crimes to crush our enemies, and making law based on their ideas of religion.
I agree that we need diversity of political thought, but I see the problem as being in the opposite direction: there are almost no left-of-center voices being heard. Bernie Sanders is just about the only one, and he barely qualifies.
We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party. The latter isn't playing devil's advocate in any useful way, they're just attracting the crazy.
I think in the more traditional view of left and right political thought you're correct, but there seems to be a huge shift away from that towards identity politics. And to say that there aren't extremists on this front on both sides of the aisle is disengenious in my opinion. They feed off one another and ignore the reality that vast majority of the country has no interest in genociding one another or abolishing the nuclear family or any other insane thing either side is always so paranoid about.
I actually think the more traditional Marxist view on identity politics is correct. It's toxic to leftism because it divides the working class.
I actually think the more traditional Marxist view on identity politics is correct. It's toxic to leftism because it divides the working class.
>The extreme left has no voice in this country.
The fact that one could gather a bunch of open communists and they'd be able to march in any major city in the US declaring their wishes to install Communism, and no one would have a problem with it should give you pause as to whether or not the "extreme left" has no voice. Rightfully we get quite irritated when the "extreme right" does that.
>We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party.
Seems like it's the exact opposite. A center-right party (the GOP) and a batshit-left party (The Democrats).
The fact that one could gather a bunch of open communists and they'd be able to march in any major city in the US declaring their wishes to install Communism, and no one would have a problem with it should give you pause as to whether or not the "extreme left" has no voice. Rightfully we get quite irritated when the "extreme right" does that.
>We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party.
Seems like it's the exact opposite. A center-right party (the GOP) and a batshit-left party (The Democrats).
I’d say the fact that nobody cares about communists demonstrates the fact that they have no real power or voice. Nobody cares because they know that communists won’t accomplish anything anyway. People get upset at far-right marches precisely because they know that these marches represent substantial power and influence.
I really don’t get your characterization of the two parties. How is it center-right to talk about nuking terrorists or murdering their families in retribution? On the other side, if Democrats are batshit-left, why aren’t they talking about nationalizing industries, seizing farms from big landowners, or abolishing religion?
I really don’t get your characterization of the two parties. How is it center-right to talk about nuking terrorists or murdering their families in retribution? On the other side, if Democrats are batshit-left, why aren’t they talking about nationalizing industries, seizing farms from big landowners, or abolishing religion?
When was the last time the US government held hearings about the "dangers" of rampant unchecked capitalism, and libertarianism?
When have they called in for testimony people to ask if they have ever owned or read "Das kapital" and ruined their careers for refusing to cooperate.
Yet that's exactly what happened with Communists and Communism.
When have they called in for testimony people to ask if they have ever owned or read "Das kapital" and ruined their careers for refusing to cooperate.
Yet that's exactly what happened with Communists and Communism.
Politically you're correct, but culturally, the left is becoming extreme. Anyone in a university or at work who's not pro-diversity, pro-affirmative action, pro-multiculturalism, or anti-Trump is met with disdain and hatred. Just spend some time on /r/TumblrInAction and see how extreme that side is becoming.
> Taking away diversity of political thought is an incredibly dangerous thing.
Equity of content isn't a practical goal. Any view can be split infinitely into sub-viewpoints. Diversity, in this context, cannot be enforced without setting limitations on discourse. All platforms (including reality, where proximity is a limitation) of speech suffer from this. Pragmatically, modal groupings form, appealing to human mental models. Humans choose to throw away diversity of political thought to focus on more immediate needs and goals. It's a borderline tautological statement that all human political activity is "dangerous" because humans are "dangerous".
Equity of content isn't a practical goal. Any view can be split infinitely into sub-viewpoints. Diversity, in this context, cannot be enforced without setting limitations on discourse. All platforms (including reality, where proximity is a limitation) of speech suffer from this. Pragmatically, modal groupings form, appealing to human mental models. Humans choose to throw away diversity of political thought to focus on more immediate needs and goals. It's a borderline tautological statement that all human political activity is "dangerous" because humans are "dangerous".
This is why even the phrase "hate speech" is dangerous -- it ultimately has no concrete meaning so it's definition is ever-expanding. It's an ideal term to use as a basis for censorship and political violence.
I'm blown away that I'm hearing this rhetoric on HN. The left has problems, but it is nothing like the insanity of the right. Conspiracy theories abound, and "right" media tends to be extremely right.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11...
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11...
there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on the left...
I'm not convinced this is really what's going on. At least, not precisely.
The United States has become more progressively politically polarized over the last two or three decades: the left has gotten more left and the right has gotten more right. But the polarization hasn't been symmetrical over that period; the right has moved much farther to the right overall.
https://www.google.com/search?q=asymmetrical+political+polar...
I think what's happening now may be the left catching up, so to speak. The lesson of the modern Conservative Movement, for better or worse (I would say worse), is that polarization works. Demonizing your opponents--not merely disagreeing with their policy positions--well, it works. The enemy isn't a political philosophy. It isn't even an ideology. It's your fellow countrymen. And there will be no peace unless they are driven out or utterly disenfranchised.
And, as much as I'd like to blame my fellow travelers on the Left, I can't. A lot of the folks who get real shrill about the (so far largely theoretical) threat of Antifa are curiously silent about how Trump has emboldened some of the absolute worst tendencies in far-right American politics. Antifa is, arguably, a reaction to that.
I don't think resistance to fascism is a bad thing, either. (That's not to say that I advocate "punching Nazis," per se, but I think conservatives are correct in finding a right to self-defense that extends, if necessary, to violence.) But we're definitely seeing a much greater polarization happening on the left, a movement akin to the Tea Party. I don't know where this ends, but it doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.
I don't think anyone should take away a diversity of political thought. But I think taking away polarization and demonization would be terrific for the country. And I admit that, right now, having the President himself spending more time encouraging that polarization and demonization than he does running the country strikes me as a grave problem. I wouldn't explicitly encourage Twitter to replace Trump's login with a placeholder page reading "Don't you think you could spend a bit more time healing rifts than creating them, Mr. President?"...but you know what? I wouldn't censure them for it, either.
I'm not convinced this is really what's going on. At least, not precisely.
The United States has become more progressively politically polarized over the last two or three decades: the left has gotten more left and the right has gotten more right. But the polarization hasn't been symmetrical over that period; the right has moved much farther to the right overall.
https://www.google.com/search?q=asymmetrical+political+polar...
I think what's happening now may be the left catching up, so to speak. The lesson of the modern Conservative Movement, for better or worse (I would say worse), is that polarization works. Demonizing your opponents--not merely disagreeing with their policy positions--well, it works. The enemy isn't a political philosophy. It isn't even an ideology. It's your fellow countrymen. And there will be no peace unless they are driven out or utterly disenfranchised.
And, as much as I'd like to blame my fellow travelers on the Left, I can't. A lot of the folks who get real shrill about the (so far largely theoretical) threat of Antifa are curiously silent about how Trump has emboldened some of the absolute worst tendencies in far-right American politics. Antifa is, arguably, a reaction to that.
I don't think resistance to fascism is a bad thing, either. (That's not to say that I advocate "punching Nazis," per se, but I think conservatives are correct in finding a right to self-defense that extends, if necessary, to violence.) But we're definitely seeing a much greater polarization happening on the left, a movement akin to the Tea Party. I don't know where this ends, but it doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.
I don't think anyone should take away a diversity of political thought. But I think taking away polarization and demonization would be terrific for the country. And I admit that, right now, having the President himself spending more time encouraging that polarization and demonization than he does running the country strikes me as a grave problem. I wouldn't explicitly encourage Twitter to replace Trump's login with a placeholder page reading "Don't you think you could spend a bit more time healing rifts than creating them, Mr. President?"...but you know what? I wouldn't censure them for it, either.
> there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on the left, and it’s important to have people calling it what it is.
there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on both sides, but I doubt Twitter is going to actually unify people as much as polarise.
there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on both sides, but I doubt Twitter is going to actually unify people as much as polarise.
Trump is hardly making rational, intellectually cogent or even factually correct criticisms of the left on Twitter. He's just making an ass of himself, so the loss of his account would probably help the right more than it hurts them.
I don't think he should be banned, because he's actually quite tame as far as Twitter goes. Sure, his spleen-venting is probably doing real harm to the cultural and political climate of the country, but that is one of the reasons he was elected... brick through the window of the establishment and whatnot. But if he hasn't violated the terms of service, then he has as much of a right to pop off tweets as anyone else.
I don't think he should be banned, because he's actually quite tame as far as Twitter goes. Sure, his spleen-venting is probably doing real harm to the cultural and political climate of the country, but that is one of the reasons he was elected... brick through the window of the establishment and whatnot. But if he hasn't violated the terms of service, then he has as much of a right to pop off tweets as anyone else.
I've seen data about the right becoming more extreme, can you point to any similar data about the left?
> The right is performing a very useful role in playing devil’s advocate
Can you elaborate on this? Playing devil's advocate is not inherently useful, in fact it can be extremely destructive.
For example playing devil's advocate on saying "hey, maybe slavery wasn't so bad" is at best a waste of time, but if you manage to convince anyone you've just made things worse. There is no value in that role.
Similarly suggesting that being a literal Nazi is "all sides are to blame, many sides" is destructive and not in the least bit a valuable role.
Trump, and the alt-right in general, is regularly in the destructive end of playing devil's advocate. What would you characterize as being useful in countering "extremism on the left"?
Can you elaborate on this? Playing devil's advocate is not inherently useful, in fact it can be extremely destructive.
For example playing devil's advocate on saying "hey, maybe slavery wasn't so bad" is at best a waste of time, but if you manage to convince anyone you've just made things worse. There is no value in that role.
Similarly suggesting that being a literal Nazi is "all sides are to blame, many sides" is destructive and not in the least bit a valuable role.
Trump, and the alt-right in general, is regularly in the destructive end of playing devil's advocate. What would you characterize as being useful in countering "extremism on the left"?
[deleted]
[deleted]
> they might ultimately provide a net benefit to the future of western democracy if they simply banned Donald Trump from twitter
What's your evidence for this?
If we were talking about a right wing demagogue without real power like Steve Bannon, I might agree. But Donald Trump is actually the president. He is the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth and he has nuclear weapons at his direct command. He can pardon any criminal in the US and can fire any member of the federal executive branch. The US department of justice reports to him. Twitter can't give him more power because he already has it. Doesn't blocking him from twitter simply mean that it is harder to incriminate or expose his thoughts and activities? IMO his tweets only undermine his power, they do not increase it.
What's your evidence for this?
If we were talking about a right wing demagogue without real power like Steve Bannon, I might agree. But Donald Trump is actually the president. He is the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth and he has nuclear weapons at his direct command. He can pardon any criminal in the US and can fire any member of the federal executive branch. The US department of justice reports to him. Twitter can't give him more power because he already has it. Doesn't blocking him from twitter simply mean that it is harder to incriminate or expose his thoughts and activities? IMO his tweets only undermine his power, they do not increase it.
The large social media sites (Facebook and Twitter), along with the large internet giants (Google and Amazon), are already skating on thin ice to avoid being classified as systemically important utilities and monopolies. The moment they overstep, expect the Republican party to strike back quickly and harshly to more forcibly regulate them, and I'm sure the internet giants will work hard to avoid that outcome.
It's too bad we can't hope for Google or Amazon to pull an "I'm taking you with me" move and get this "network neutrality" fight out of the way.
True that "no [legal] obligation or legal requirement" exists but a democratic society requires free discussion to survive and the last time the US public threw out this principle, it brought us the term "McCarthyism" [0]
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/corporations-are-crac...
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/corporations-are-crac...
I have a hard time believing that millions of users would abandon twitter if they dropped his account.
It's more about an eventual massive drop in media coverage. Like it or not thanks to this account only, twitter is in every media outlet EVERY day... for free.
That's extremely powerful and undeniable.
Twitter probably wouldn't survive banning Trump. They're already losing users in the US.
Trump switching to a different platform would instantly give the new platform millions of active users. A new competitor like that would make TWTR crash on the market.
Trump switching to a different platform would instantly give the new platform millions of active users. A new competitor like that would make TWTR crash on the market.
He provides a ton of value for them. Some estimates put his value to twitter in the billions
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-t...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-t...
Not so sure it would give them millions of active users. Tens of thousands maybe, and a lot of bots.
It's funny to see how the Donald trump subreddit (who claim to have 6 million members), after sticking a link to a petition can only gather a couple of thousand votes. What makes you think millions of people will flood to Trumps soapbox?
It's funny to see how the Donald trump subreddit (who claim to have 6 million members), after sticking a link to a petition can only gather a couple of thousand votes. What makes you think millions of people will flood to Trumps soapbox?
Please let it be Mastodon
> The first amendment only extends to government laws.
This isn't true. SCOTUS has decided [0] that denying someone access to social media can be considered an infringement of the 1st amendment. Salient quote from the decision: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
This isn't true. SCOTUS has decided [0] that denying someone access to social media can be considered an infringement of the 1st amendment. Salient quote from the decision: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
[deleted]
There was some comments about how Trump has the "right" to tweet. Kinda funny that people honestly think that...
Genuine question here:
Are there defamation or slander laws in the US? How does that reconcile with the First Amendment?
Are there defamation or slander laws in the US? How does that reconcile with the First Amendment?
Oh, not this again...
And I am assuming you get to define what hateful speech is?
[deleted]
[deleted]
If it wasn’t on purpose, then they must have some interesting special logic around his account in particular (maybe others?) that was maybe accidentally altered/enabled. I’m just curious what the nature of that special logic is. Maybe to exempt it from context-free abuse review, as gb_ said below?
I mean he did wish for people to get the death sentence earlier today, Im sure that goes against Twitters Code Of Conduct [1] , but since he saved Twitter from going under Im sure he's got a lifetime get out of jail free card.
[1] https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050#
[1] https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050#
> I mean he did wish for people to get the death sentence earlier today, Im sure that goes against Twitters Code Of Conduct
I doubt it. There is a prohibition on promoting violence, but it seems pretty clear that it has an implicit exception for violence that is legal. Otherwise you'd see them throwing people off for various tweets about boxing, football, jousting, and other sports that involve people committing violent acts on other people.
The death penalty is legal in the US. Tweeting that you think someone who is accused of committing crimes for which that is a possible penalty should receive that penalty is almost certainly going to fall under that implicit exception.
I doubt it. There is a prohibition on promoting violence, but it seems pretty clear that it has an implicit exception for violence that is legal. Otherwise you'd see them throwing people off for various tweets about boxing, football, jousting, and other sports that involve people committing violent acts on other people.
The death penalty is legal in the US. Tweeting that you think someone who is accused of committing crimes for which that is a possible penalty should receive that penalty is almost certainly going to fall under that implicit exception.
I honestly don't think Trump could ever get kicked off Twitter at this point, he saved their failing company, he can do whatever he wants. Special privilege sure, but it's not our choice.
This person killed 8 innocent people by plowing into them with a car. If one of those persons was a loved one of your own, would you want him to get the death penalty?
No, that's sick. Civilized states like New York don't execute people, only the federal government can do so here (in an arguable violation of the "states' rights" that Republicans hold so dearly).
I'm sorry we can disagree then, but if somebody ran over and killed one of my loved ones and seven other innocent people purely because they despise American's, I'd want the death penalty for that person.
You can want it, and say it, but not on Twitter and that was the point. He probably got temp banned for violating their Code of Conduct in regards to Hateful Conduct.
> He probably got temp banned for violating their Code of Conduct in regards to Hateful Conduct.
Nope. It was intentional. Employee's last day.
Nope. It was intentional. Employee's last day.
>He probably got temp banned for violating their Code of Conduct in regards to Hateful Conduct.
This is such a garbage standard. It simply amounts to any speech whoever is running the support team that day doesn't like.
This is such a garbage standard. It simply amounts to any speech whoever is running the support team that day doesn't like.
>If one of those persons was a loved one of your own, would you want him to get the death penalty?
Probably, but none of them were Trump's loved ones, so your appeal to emotion is irrelevant in his case.
As President, Trump is supposed to respect the rule of law and the rights of American citizens (all of them, even the mass-murdering terrorists) not call for their summary execution in all caps like a rageposting lunatic.
Probably, but none of them were Trump's loved ones, so your appeal to emotion is irrelevant in his case.
As President, Trump is supposed to respect the rule of law and the rights of American citizens (all of them, even the mass-murdering terrorists) not call for their summary execution in all caps like a rageposting lunatic.
Other points notwithstanding, Sayfullo Saipov is not an American citizen.
> Saipov came to the United States in 2010 on a diversity visa, the Department of Homeland Security said. He has since become a legal permanent resident.
While not a "citizen" essentially, excluding voting rights.
While not a "citizen" essentially, excluding voting rights.
So, not a citizen.
Fair enough, then. Is he subject to American laws? Does he have the protection of the same Constitutional and legal rights as any American, including presumption of innocence and a fair trial?
Not if he’s tried as an enemy combatant, which there are legal grounds for given his connections with an entity with which the US is at war.
I have no idea. I am not an American. Merely pointing out that he is not a citizen, which grandparent comment vaguely suggested that he was.
Im just arguing that Twitter has a Code of Conduct [1] and Trump definitely falls across that line frequently, I could easily see how he should be banned but probably has special privilege as for he is solely responsible for saving the business from demise.
[1] https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050#
[1] https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050#
Twitters TOS are already selectively enforced so it’s a logical step to extend a privilege to a VIP account (in the revenue sense)
Sure, but I think you're missing the bigger point. It's not about Twitter's business, it's about free speech and the fact that he is the fairly elected president of the United States. You can't pick and choose. I'm sure I'll continue to get downvoted though.
You're getting downvoted because your reply was a non sequitur. Nobody was making a claim as to whether he should have said what he said, just that it might have triggered some automatic controls in place at Twitter that might have contributed to this event.
> It's not about Twitter's business, it's about free speech
You're incorrect here, for Twitter it's 100% about business, money and relevancy.
You're incorrect here, for Twitter it's 100% about business, money and relevancy.
This isn’t about free speech, Twitter can kick Trump off its platform for whatever reason they want, including that the President of the United States is breaking their TOS. It’s their platform, the President isn’t required to get special treatment.
> If one of those persons was a loved one of your own, would you want him to get the death penalty?
No, I wouldn't. That seems like an easy way out for them. Why should I have to live a life of pain and suffering from my loss and they don't?
No, I wouldn't. That seems like an easy way out for them. Why should I have to live a life of pain and suffering from my loss and they don't?
Happened after the markets closed - would be very interesting to see the impact while open. I'd wager on a mini flash crash as bots short sell.
thats ok since i made a backup for him here : http://TrumpTweets.io
https in the works!
https in the works!
Bugs, fat-fingers and misclicks don't care that you're the president.
I’m surprised they don’t do this anyway.
Whatever noteriety they get from Trump has to come with a cost. The words “twitter” and “Trump” become more and more associated every day.
Whatever noteriety they get from Trump has to come with a cost. The words “twitter” and “Trump” become more and more associated every day.
[deleted]
Just act on the abuse reports and delete his account for real and do the world a favor.
You're getting downvoted, but Twitter has stated that "newsworthiness" can cause a tweet to be exempted from their rules. https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438362010783744
Ironic counterpoint: I now notice that the deactivation itself is 'newsworthy' and has been picked up by Reuters et al. Does this mean that this particular employee is now exempt from sacking or other disciplinary measures because what he/she did was 'newsworthy'?
What a tangled (inter)web we have weaved...
What a tangled (inter)web we have weaved...
Censorship of political rivals never does anyone a favor. How would you feel if people had said this same thing about Obama? Isn't it enough that over 90% of the mainstream (old) media coverage of Trump is negative for you? Do you REALLY need to ban him on Twitter?
Obama wasn't setting policy or doing "diplomacy" on Twitter. If he were, I'd say the same thing. People asking for Twitter to ban Trump aren't all doing it because of their political "side" -- his use of the platform is harmful on its own.
Many people are fine with banning Nazi sympathizers, posters of ISIS propaganda, and many were fine with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulos. Those prove that banning of political rivals is fine on Twitter. It's just a matter of where they draw the line, and whether or not they're willing to face the consequences of doing so.
[deleted]
PKop(1)
nodesocket(1)
Of course this entire thread becomes a political circle jerk of people wanting Trump banned from Twitter rather than the seemingly poor internal controls on Twitter.
And now they admit it was an employee on their last day. So, yup, lack of internal controls. Appreciate the downvotes.
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-twitter-account-deleted-by-cus...
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-twitter-account-deleted-by-cus...
Hey it's not a bug! New feature twitter is testing out! So far I hear it had huge ratings!
Human... "error"? Give that employee a raise!
Laughing at the downvotes on this... :)
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Especially please don't post comments going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Especially please don't post comments going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
Having never worked anywhere on the scale of Twitter, the only non-malicious kind of human error I can think of is like when Google accidentally blacklisted all of Internet as malware [0]. What would be the accidental step/keystroke that happened to target the most controversial user account? Unless @realdonaldtrump was part of the manual-moderation queue and a human accidentally approved the ban.
But that would seem to indicate that @realdonaldtrump (and other massive accounts) don't have a special flag to be treated differently, which sounds even worse of a bespoke-workflow-nightmare. @realdonaldtrump must get receive so many abuse reports that it would constantly show up in the moderation queue otherwise.
[0] https://www.wired.com/2009/02/google-glitch-b/
edit: Update from Twitter:
https://twitter.com/TwitterGov/status/926267806261407744
> Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee’s last day. We are conducting a full internal review.
Wow, I imagined ACL/auditing being not completely disciplined -- such as SREs having root-tier access. I never would have thought that a customer support employee had unchecked power to disable accounts. It makes some sense that they would have autonomy to quickly deal with obviously bad/fake accounts. But not with Trump-tier accounts. Not just because of Trump, but all the other major accounts/brands who use Twitter as a primary communication medium.