It's a violation of less importance than Trump's, since Costolo neither has a military nor informally controls any vigilante groups, but it's a violation, all the same.

I agree the author did an excellent job of describing the situation and its pertinent angles and facets.

I agree that there is a probabilistic argument to be made that Trump’s words are more likely to lead to violence than Costolo’s.

However that seems to me to be all the distinction is. Costolo is a public figure. A multi millionaire, almost certainly richer than Trump, and there are violent activists who support his kind of rhetoric too.

It seems pretty clear that Twitter not censoring his tweets the way they have with Trump is based on a political distinction.

You could even see his statement as declaring Twitter itself to be an activist organization that sees revolution as inevitable and is working towards that aim.

That would undermine the idea that it’s somehow at a different level of seriousness to Trump’s tweets.

Costolo is talking about murdering business people whose ethics he disagrees with.

He could be instead be talking about voting out Trump and reinvigorating democratic institutions, but he isn’t.

I replied to a request to "make a case" that Costolo's tweet doesn't violate Twitter’s TOS.

I made a case. I didn't say I subscribe to it. I don't.

That's what I tried (and apparently failed) to convey by concluding "it's a violation, all the same"

Fair enough! I should have been been clear about not wanting a straw man!

It's not a call for violence, not even indirectly -- he's not suggesting that they should be shot, only that they will face violence and that they had it coming.

> he's not suggesting that they should be shot

Right, he's only proclaiming that he'd be happy if they were shot...

The literal words: "I'll happily provide video commentary."

The shooting happens when the revolution happens, which is unavoidable outcome of their behavior: "are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution".

Right-wing persecution complex is so funny.

The only people who are shot as an unavoidable consequence of their own actions are people who commit suicide or shoot themselves by accident.

Anything else is consequence of someone else’s intent to kill them, or negligence.

Which one are you talking about?