441–450 of 1001 posts
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
I reckon it also has a lot to do with ad revenue. Trump is the ONLY reason I'm on Twitter. There is literally no other benefit I gain from being on Twitter. Also, people only ever respond to me if I tweet against Trump's policies. If I say anything about science or tech or humanity or art or say some interesting ideas, nobody listens to me. Nobody retweets me. Nobody follows me. It's like talking to a wall. His term…
Trump thinks Section 230 is hurting him, but it's actually the only thing that's been protecting him.
Read as often as required.
Disclaimer: I am not supporting Trump.
I've always tried to maintain a nuanced view of Twitter (and other socials) for keeping his account up. He's POTUS after-all. People saying Twitter should just shut him down because he incites, are, in my view, correct. Mentally however, I could never quite square the argument; I kept returning to `he's POTUS`. Social networks deserve much criticism, but those only criticizing social networks overlook the fact that there is a legislative body that has always been empowered to remove him, whose duty in fact is to be a check on him. The primary blame for him retaining his power must primarily lay at their feet, specifically those of the President's party. They thought they could ride the bull but they have finally been thrown off of it. Now they are seeking to distance themselves from the bull. I am sorry, but they should not be able to. Had they been forthright with their supporters and stuck to their views of Trump before he was president, we might have avoided all of this.
In a better world, Congress would have acted and those who were trying to cynically benefit from Trump should have had the fortitude to call him out immediately and removed him.
I don't disagree that Twitter should have acted sooner. As others have pointed out, their timing is much too late. They acted after Trump has been legislatively defanged. Still, Trump is dangerous, we're just fortunate he's an incompetent buffoon who is disinterest in the actual minutiae of the job. He should resign immediately. He won't. He should be removed by his cabinet or Congress as soon as possible.
74 million voters. This is not going to play out well. There's really no coming back from this moment, the technocratic elite have changed American democracy forever. Edit: I mean this in the way Snowden tweeted yesterday, it will be interesting how this plays out for better or worse, but it is a monumental policy shift that will be a date marked in history books.
I doubt it’s as big as you say. Watch interviews with normal Trump voters (ie, not the meme-lords and q nuts), and they have expressed a pretty high degree of frustration with his Twitter habit for most of his presidency. Given how long Twitter has put up with the obvious abuse of the latitude they uniquely gave him, a lot of people may be grumpy but will understand. Had they done this years ago and NOT given him suc…
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Wow, if that's not an example of arbitrary use of ToS, I don't know what is. In no way were the two tweets listed "glorification of violence". I don't like DJT and didn't vote for him, but... what a farce, what a travesty.
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…