zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

>>partia+uY
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.

>>phailh+I41
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712

EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago

>>formal+C51
Whatever tweet he retweeted, it's now unavailable. Looks like Twitter's moderation policies are working as expected.

>>phailh+F71
"burn it down. fuck property. fuck cops."

That's what the tweet says, there are screenshots in the replies.

>>Y_Y+E91
Let's compare that to "when the looting starts the shooting begins".

Which is an observation, and which is a directive? I think that is the key question that Twitter is dodging. They want to editorialize with their opinion as to which is which, but not for everyone.

>>Simula+Cp1
Hacker News frequently threatens censorship, prevents users from responding for several hours, etc. Do you think they should have that right since it is their platform?