381–390 of 1001 posts
When /r/the_donald got booted off reddit they got together and created https://thedonald.win/ . 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If Twitter was being fair, many democrats would be banned too since they also said things to whip up mobs this past year with far worse consequences. Some are still ongoing (Portland).
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…
Whatever you think about Trump, he has First Amendment rights under the U.S. constitution. If violating the law, he should be punished, but it is not up to private companies to revoke constitutional rights. Trump still has the right to speak publicly. No one should wish that he be silenced by private companies. Trump should just tell his supporters to go to his own web site and communicate with them that way. There's…
That's not the case.
Bill of Rights does not apply to Twitter.
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…
most Americans never lived in a totalitarian state. Totalitarian state starts when the freedom of speech is gone. It would be a humongous loss to weaken or lose freedom of speech. As someone who lived in USSR, I am am always on the side of the freedom of speech. Of course I never supported Trump, but I think the consequences of normalizing censorship will be far more damaging then whatever he has to say. Once you’ve…
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…
Previously theoretic risks are now manifest, demonstrated, and cognizable.
Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred.
The instigator is unrepentent and non-credible in what are at best tepid disavowals.
The totality of context has changed. If "he has tweeted worse things in the past", the undeniable impact is abundantly clear.
The ban is absolutely warranted. If anything, it is many years too late.
Twitter specifically address these points:
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. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
From TFA
Members of congress were almost taken hostage because an obviously lying autocrat wanted to overturn a fair election, and people in this thread are wringing their hands over it.
Free speech is to protect people from autocratic governments, not private enterprises. Private companies can choose how they handle speech as they wish.
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…
>Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? Well as far as politics is concerned.. the US Government (and other governments) should make their own twitter like platforms which every active representative has an account, and ANYTHING (barring pure illegal) can be posted. It doesn't even need to have an actual user base, it can just be somewhere…
> It doesn't even need to have an actual user base, it can just be somewhere to go to see what your politician is thinking.
That's just called a blog. The value of social media for politicians is the "social" part.
Me thinks this will have huge implications for big tech. A Pandora’s box was just opened.
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…
> You should counter bad arguments with better arguments We've witnessed the fallacy of this argument. It assumes a level of rationality that has been proven to be unreasonable to assume. The problem isn't that "better" arguments aren't reaching people. Rather, we have watched people exercise an incredible ability to discard overwhelming evidence and embrace narratives that have literally zero evidence to support the…