571–580 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
following the wikipedia article I found https://www.avclub.com/twitter-releases-statement-confirming... "Twitter releases statement confirming it'll never ban Donald Trump"
Maybe. But there's probably a business model out there this is simply a Twitter clone that waits for the Trump account to move there, and bang, instant success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
No, I don't think it was. A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything. It is an observation. Just like it was your observation (and opinion) that it said something different. The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?
Ah yes, and his followers are widely known for their highly nuanced and level-headed understanding of things he says (and politics in general) /s.
>The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?
On whether egregiously advocating violence is ok? Really?
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…
Seriously. Twitter and Facebook are full of liberals talking about "bringing back the guillotine" but I don't see any of that getting censored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. But there's probably a business model out there this is simply a Twitter clone that waits for the Trump account to move there, and bang, instant success.
There is and they (Gab) get an okay number of likes on every one of his posts promoting it. [0] Also Facebook is now well positioned to be his next platform if he moves off twitter. 0. https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1266347307391488002
P.S. I know this comment is auto-dead, and that's okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of being the police, Twitter should do what Rotten Tomatoes does. There are plenty of people - journalists and researchers analyzing the facts behind what celebrities say. They should analyze what the analysts say and display a score.
Even better, directly link the research on the topic, from both sides. Instead of drawing a conclusion on behalf of everybody, give people what they need to draw their own.
No one needs to do anything here. People can research and find stuff out for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.
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.
How about this one: https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?...
You could say requesting dox is a form of violence. But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people. It's reasonable that a policy of removing tweets that glorify violence would catch one but not the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erm, what? This is just not true, and is a false dichotomy. Moderation is hard. Always has been. Stuff will slip through the cracks. POTUS has the most popular (and currently most controversial - note, that's _controversial_ not _extreme_ or some other morph) so it's easy to see why Twitter are on top of it. Other blue-checked accounts, whilst more "important" than unverified, just simply don't compare to the importa…
If most of the mistakes happen in one direction, then I would argue that there's some other mechanism at work than just "mistakes". Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw... Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on who and what. And it's the inconsistency that will fuel the critics. They didn't suspend Spike Lee who caused direct harm to a private individual who happened to share a name with an infamous individual: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-lee-settles-twi...
Because suspending Spike Lee would have required someone at Twitter to make that decision, and they're not going to do that. But will leap at the chance for Trump. It's been a clear double standard for years.