361–370 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.
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.
Dumping him now allows Twitter to virtue signal and avoid looking like an enabler of literal violence, all while giving up virtually nothing in return.
Kind of like how his cabinet members are now resigning. No big loss for them, as they’ll be out of a job shortly anyway. Might as well “stand up to him” while they still have the opportunity to reap political kudos.
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
I suspect two factors went into the calculus this time: he has proved himself desperately dangerous AND he's got less than 2 weeks left in his term.
Yes, I think this is actually it. After he basically commanded them to "Stop the Steal", I said that Facebook and Twitter would ban him. I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. If he is so unAmerican that he would actually tell his mob to attack the Capitol buildings, he really doesn't care about America at all. Being as petulant as he is, nuclear war is very much on the table. That's how crazy this situa…
> I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. I think since he cowered so hard during his concession, he's done playing tough guy. He'll hand out medals and pardons and then run away. I can't believe how much like "Animal Farm" this whole thing played out. Almost verbatim with the constant attempts to scapegoat Snowball/Antifa. Although given that 80% of republicans think the election was stolen (and 40% of t…
Better to try and understand the complex psycho-social-economic factors that lead to this situation. Without a clear understanding of how a problem came to be, how can it be fixed?
They let him concede, waited a day, and then nuked him. It's too little too late, but I'll take it.
The looser does not have to concede. There's no requirement to do so, and there's precedent not to as well.
Does 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…
If it's an open vox populi platform, and if something isn't illegal (as in quotable in law), why should a platform have its own police? Leave it to, err, police? Of course, that opens up a question of whose police and laws if the platform is global... However, my point is, if the platform is non-moderated, why censor on your own?