I read both of these tweets just now. I have never read his Twitter posts before, and am not a Trump supporter (or a Democrat supporter; all politicians IMO are liars), but I don't understand how Twitter claims that the text of either of these tweets incites violence.
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#982Earlier 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
This was happening during BLM endlessly last summer. Verified profiles calling for this kind of action, saying looting is part of the struggle and the right thing to do, etc, etc. Weirdly Twitter didn't seem to wake up when that was happening.
Racist justice always gets a pass when compared to fascist nonsense based on lies. For the sheer scale of the BLM protests they were overwhelmingly peaceful.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#983This 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
What bad thing did he say to incite the mob?
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#984This 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…
[deleted]
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#98574 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…
45% of Republicans support the actions at the capitol
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#986Does 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…
Maybe chill out about deplatfoming? Any one can put up a website for about $10 with whatever text on they want and if twitter.com or facebook.com chose not to have the text of your choice go to another site.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#987Earlier 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
Additionally I believe wholesale banning the leader of a country from a platform like twitter is not black or white. Their persona is different and requires different treatment than any other given account. 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.
AND the evidence this movement is organizing more violence around the inauguration.
With this knowledge, Twitter would be complicit if they continued to enable and amplify it.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#988This HN article, the Twitter blog page that it points to, all of these comments, and all linked related URLs and news stories surrounding this --
NEED TO BE PRESERVED FOR FUTURE HISTORIANS
I repeat...
All of this:
NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED FOR FUTURE HISTORIANS
In other words, don't let the fake news (or whomever else) horseshit you about what happened at this point of time in earth's history 5, 10, or 20+ years from now, when all of this information "conveniently" goes missing...
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IN TIME IN EARTH'S HISTORY
I don't care what side of the debate you are on; all I ask is that if you care, if you truly care, then capture and store as much information as you can about this event as you can, from your side, from the other side, from all sides...
IT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT IN TIME IN EARTH'S HISTORY.
Don't let this information, all of it, or any of it, go into future memory sinkholes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
On behalf of myself and future historians, I (and they!) thank you!
We now return you to your regular HN reading and commenting.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#989To quote the ACLU: the Ayatollah can tweet, but the U. S. President cannot. Good luck walking that fine line.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#990Is 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.
This was my exact initial reaction. However, suppose that Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barack Obama had declined to attend the inauguration of there predecessors. That would surely trigger a crisis worthy of de-platforming. We’ve become somewhat numb to this sort of thing. I guess my second draft would have said, “We’ve allowed DJT a platform because he is the President of the United States. In light of all that he…
Bush Jr. did not attend.
He was on an aircraft flying to Texas. This is memorable because the FAA had to modify software to support the callsign of an aircraft changing during flight, in this case from Air Force One to something else.