It is sad that actions like this don't even surprise people anymore. Perhaps this is one of those Twitter actions that falls under the umbrella of "improving community discussions" instead of the first amendment.
back
3 comments
Twitter banned the US president and went out of their way to clarify they are not banning the Taliban.
What I especially detest is the implication that if you disagree with Twitter's banning Trump, then you must be a Trump supporter. It's the epitome of the "first they came for X" strategy. I can disagree with Trump, and still also disagree with the precedent of arbitrarily banning a political figure for much less than other figures and groups are allowed to get away with.
Well, its not like the Taliban ever supported an insurrection.
It's ridiculous that this utterly obvious joke is being downvoted. I'm amazed -- and I say this kindly, as someone with Asperger's -- at the aggregate autism level on this site.
Please don't post name-calling putdowns to HN. Adding the word 'kindly' doesn't make something kindly, and it's against several of site guidelines.
That's fair enough - my bad. I wouldn't perceive it as an insult, but I can see that it's widely treated as such.
I call being censored like that "got twittered". It'll be bad for Twitter when that descriptor becomes commonly used.
Just call it being harmonized. That's what the Chinese have been calling it for years. Twitter is part of the same kind of apparatus in the US.
Why would you be surprised that an account that was accused of being part of a content system spreading misinformation would be suspended?
A person can say what they want but no-one is forced to listen to it or help promote it.
As well, if this account was part of a system of bots and fake accounts that were spreading a particular message isn't that something that you want to see removed from a social media platform?
Isn't authentic information and material important?