561–570 of 1001 posts
Twitter has become the example of right vs left. I don't think this tweet "glorifies" violence, but my opinion doesn't matter, only Twitter's. That herein is the problem. It would be interesting if Trump left twitter and made the journalists follow him to some other platform.
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political. Everyone is applau…
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This man holds the office of the POTUS. There are certain responsibilities that come with it. The officeholder cannot make deadly threats publicly and expect everyone to just shrug it off.
But does that responsibility extend to other members of Government, or just the President?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, Trump, the guy who had a platform plank complaining about his predecessors' use of executive orders as "power grabs" [0], actually issued an executive order about Twitter's TOS ? 0 - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-19/trump-...
It's nothing new. Politics is a team based sport. My brother calls Obama "King Obama" but is still a huge fan of Trump. I've discussed some of this stuff with him: in his eyes, Obama did stuff he shouldn't have, so Trump can do stuff he shouldn't.
This is a terrible line of thinking. I'm no Trump fan, but there's a ton of things neither Trump nor Obama should have done as president, and excusing one with the actions of another doesn't make a bad act good.
What kind of utterly ridiculous policy is hiding posts for “glorifying violence?” So if I write a post about the Bangladeshi independence war, saying how great it was that we beat those damn Pakistanis, my post would get hidden?
Why is that ridiculous?
In practice, I strongly suspect the Twitter isn't actually applying the policy as written. Instead, they're applying the policy selectively, based on ideological biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? IMO we would see the opposite, and liberal politicians calling for Twitter to be taken down. One person's soap box is another's tabloid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that the rules are being enforced selectively. Just this week Twitter fact checked Trump's opinion on mail voter fraud by linking to other experts' opinions. It seems more like a move to influence the election rather than enforcing the rules.
> The issue is that the rules are being enforced selectively. It's not only acceptable but actually ethically correct to hold those with more power to higher standards of responsibility. It's therefore not only acceptable but actually ethically correct to enforce these rules more proactively against the President of the United States than some Russian bot account.
You'll say one thing is "ethically correct", and someone else will say the exact opposite thing is "ethically correct".
Neither of you is right, and neither of you is wrong.