4 years of fascism and inciting violence is all it took. This is far too little too late and Twitter is clearly complicit.
I don't think you know what the 4th word of your own sentence really means to the context of this situation.
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
161–170 of 1001 posts
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#162If anyone would like to discuss this in a live chat I've posted it to Sqwok - https://sqwok.im/p/Qc6NbMulLuK5PA
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#163Is 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.
Taken in isolation the two tweets in particular don't seem that much crazier than anything else he has said over the past four years. However, given the overall context of what happened on Wednesday and the (now deleted) tweets leading up to the incident, there is sufficient justification (IMO) for a ban from those prior tweets alone.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#164To all those saying that this account should not be suspended because a president's messages should not be blocked, Twitter did not ban @POTUS, only @realDonaldTrump. The office of the president is not silenced, only the personal account of the current president. If something important comes up he can tweet via @POTUS (for another 12 days or so, anyway).
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#165Is 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 didn’t just look at the tweets; they looked at how they’re actually being received. I think that’s a crucial distinction.
Reported this comment for incitement to violence.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#166[deleted]
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#167Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms?
As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints:
a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments.
b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad.
I have to say, I agree with both of those points. I think group A is missing the point, that there are echo chambers and people radicalizing within their filter-bubbles up to the point of literal terrorism, while group B is missing that the power to censor can be misused by bad actors in the future and that silenced people will not just change their mind.
Is there a proper answer for someone like me? Where should I stand on this? I am leaning towards group A, while acknowledging that radicalization does happen and dearly worrying about perversion of words like "truth" or "fact" ("your/my truth", "alternate facts").
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#168Okay, let's retroactively suspend John McCain for singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" on a hot mike.
President George W. Bush should be suspended for invading Iraq on false or flimsy pretexts, resulting in 6,000 American soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Obama lied when he said "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" eleven times and this turned out not to be true (90% anyway). Shouldn't the social networks censor patently false and misleading statements by a very influential leader?
Ronald Reagan said something about launching the nukes on the USSR, I don't remember the exact quote. Cancel him off social media.
Et cetera.
The harm in censorship is that it actually reduces the flow of communication and information, for future historical records as well as for the present.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#169The downside is that we won’t be able to see his tweets about being banned from Twitter.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#170Is 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.
Snowflakes gonna flake.