"Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.

I don't really even think property damage should be included in the definition of "violence" and maybe Twitter agrees with me.

She also didn't say what to burn down. Trump was very clear that looters are who he wanted shot. Burn it down is a common saying that can mean anything from literally burning stuff to just tearing down a system in order to rebuild.

> "Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.

That's the kind of thing that results in the insidious left-wing bias of sites like Twitter. Moderators who don't believe that property damage is a blatant violation of peoples' rights, but do believe peoples' rights are violated by mere words alone, and moderating in accordance with such views.

Property damage is absolutely a violation of people's rights, which is why property was added to the constitution. Outrage does not negate a business owners rights.

There is no equivalence between property damage equivalent to killing, much as there is no equivalence between a random twitter user “calling for the guillotines” and the commander of the armed forces threatening to unleash a massacre. It is beyond bad faith to argue otherwise.

Let me make sure I understand your position properly - are you saying that it is insidious left-sing bias to believe that people's rights can be violated by mere words alone?

The entire purpose of Section 230 is to provide protection against civil liability for platforms who publish mere words from their users. Is your position, then, that if we remove the insidious left-wing bias from our political system, there's no need for Section 230 because platforms can never be liable for the mere words that they republish?

Are all of the commentators who are asking for Twitter's Section 230 protections to be removed, including the president, part of an insidious left-wing conspiracy?

It's been a couple of hours - in general, saying stuff like that actually does in fact get Twitter's content moderation to kick in and force you to delete the tweet, and I regularly see folks who aren't conservative get temporary suspensions for it.

> It's been a couple of hours

She posted that tweet more like 11 hours ago. Since that time it has become somewhat infamous - I've seen it in my deliberately not-politicized timeline and separately here on HN. What is the chance their content moderation team hasn't seen it?

Whatever tweet he retweeted, it's now unavailable. Looks like Twitter's moderation policies are working as expected.

She just made her tweets private is why that's happening

"burn it down. fuck property. fuck cops."

That's what the tweet says, there are screenshots in the replies.

Let's compare that to "when the looting starts the shooting begins".

Which is an observation, and which is a directive? I think that is the key question that Twitter is dodging. They want to editorialize with their opinion as to which is which, but not for everyone.

Hacker News frequently threatens censorship, prevents users from responding for several hours, etc. Do you think they should have that right since it is their platform?

They protected their tweets.

Damaging property is not violence.

It literally is part of the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

In this case, doesn't Twitter's definition of violence matter more than the dictionary's definition? Here it is:

> Glorification of violence policy

...

> You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.

(https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...)

What if a person said it as opinion: Looting has the potential to initiate shootings. Are we looking at an opinion, an observation, or glorying violence.

If I said that, it's an observation. If the chief of police said that, it's an implied threat. This is because I don't have the power to initiate shootings, while the chief of police does. There is a power differential, and statements can be viewed in the context of the person making them.

This is why phrases like "we should nuke them from orbit", which might be calls to violence if made by a head of state, are generally seen as satire, because there's no chance of me actually nuking someone from orbit. Context matters.

If some hypothetical person said it as an opinion or an observation, you'd have to look at Twitter's policy and try to understand the spirit of the law. Threats are a direct form of pro-violence speech, and glorifying violence is an indirect form of pro-violence speech, so it seem to cover a spectrum to me.

But whichever way they interpret it, all that really matters when it comes to fairness is that they are consistent.

If we look at a very non-hypothetical person named Donald Trump, he wrote "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" immediately after "I won't let that happen" and "the Military" and "we will assume control". Without context, the words could be just an opinion or observation, but in the context he used them, that's not a reasonable interpretation. You don't mention sending in the military (who have guns, obviously) and then mention shooting as a total non sequitur in the next sentence.

If somehow improbably he meant it to be an opinion or observation, he phrased it terribly, and Twitter is within their rights to interpret it how he wrote it.

I am pretty sure you would disagree if someone started smashing your front door or car. It is at best technically true in a deeply misleading way like calling a surgeon "a professional cutter and organ remover from the helpless".

I wouldn't be too happy, but to me violence is damaging a living thing. Not property.

There is an implied threat and cohersion to it of "do it or else" or "I can break you too". That is the violence against the person. Smashing your own car in front of somebody's house wouldn't include that threat as it is their property to what they wish although it would make you look crazy.

I have a cane that I need to use to walk. Somebody breaks my cane. What is that?

Was the cane broken intentionally or unintentionally?

Such a scenario would be unfortunate. The lack of context makes it impossible to determine with any certainty.

It's something similar to buying up the rights for, and increasing the price of a life-necessarry drug by 2000%. Is that also violence?

I can see an argument that it is.

This is not quite true, losing property can cause real material harm to someone. If my house burns down and I'm on the streets, there is a real chance of harm to my person. Also now apparently words can be violence and cause the cancellation of someone..pretty sure it's all up for grabs now.

By pretty much every definition it is violence.