131–140 of 1001 posts
I really don't when a private company decides who gets air time and who doesn't. Oh well it's the world we live in.
If it's disruptive for one private company to kick someone off, then perhaps they shouldn't have that much control over communication?
All this action from twitter will do is create an opportunity for a different or new site to host trump's comments. And for many people, and maybe someday the majority of people, that new site may be more trustworthy than twitter.
Will politicians continue using Twitter et al after this? Seems a bit risky to reach out to their followers using a third-party. Why don’t they have their own website?
That said; it seems a stretch to me to permanently delete his account based on the two tweets they cite. They're about to break their necks trying to find problems in those two tweets when they have a smorgasbord of inflammatory tweets over the years to pick from. Saying he won't attend the inauguration was the final straw? It really seems disingenuous on their part.
I would respect them far more if they had said, "You know what? Our decision to reinstate his account after twelve hours was a mistake. Donald Trump is clearly harmful to our republic and we will no longer give him a voice on our platform. His account is therefore permanently suspended."
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.
They've wanted to ban him since day one. They just have the political backing to do it now.
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.
Violate the terms, get banned. That's fair.
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
I think the logic isn't that hard. Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally