81–90 of 1001 posts
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Really not sure how I feel about this though... weighing between the benefits of allowing open speech on “town square” Internet forums versus enforcing their right as a private entity and removing his violence-inciting self.
Either way, this is a huge deal
1984 Two minutes of hate is real, so very real, and it's quite sad how most people welcomed this into the world.
I've deleted my social media, twitters years before, and have divested myself completely from other platforms. There is nothing to be valued, gained or such,
The Internet should always be a decentralized, fragmented piece of human technology. The more centralized it becomes, the more authoritarian it is. And the orgs that become in control point the finger at others to show off how it's not them.
--
I hold no opinion on Trump, but these tech companies have to much power and it's a game of bidding where they can creep more and more into our lives and general lobbying to make the case that life is "better" with them here then it ever was before.
I can't say if it really is.
Weird they quote the tweets which are so 'dangerous'
"Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks."
They then explain exactly what they're thinking about those tweets.
Update: People are more emotionally involved with this than I am. I'll avoid getting involved.
This is not a good idea. Whatever you think about Trump, he is still holding public office.
And it seems coordinated with a parler ban at app store level and a purge of other political figures.
It just begs for a counter move. He is still the president, not all out of options.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
Or has that slack been taken up by Bitcoin?