There's a phrase "Talking out of both sides of your mouth." He said what he believed the urging of politicans, media and oppositional citizens wanted by saying "go home" while continuing to say what his base wanted to hear - "we won in a landslide and it was stolen."

Each side could choose to only hear what they want, or recognize it for the manipulation it is. We know what his followers will do - hear what they want to hear. We know what his opposition will do - hear it for the manipulation it is. Therefore we can conclude that it was not a genuine urging of his followers to actually give up and leave.

The President's attorney also ran a rally 2 hours before the riot calling for "trial by combat". Some speech is way over the line. There's always a wink at the end.

https://twitter.com/SamuelSokol/status/1347173729458122753

And when politicians call each other Nazis, or when Joe Biden claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to re-enslave black people?

Seems like you're only going to apply your "inciting violence" claim to one side. I watched cities burn over the summer and intense levels of violence... And yet no one on the left trotted out speech bans and "incitement to violence" claims. It's obvious you're selectively targeting enforcement of intentionally vague standards. Federal buildings were being accosted in Portland and Seattle just a few months ago and the mayors supported them. Haven't seen their accounts banned.

Not the same thing. Stop trying to make the two sound the same.

It all started when Mr. Biden, addressing a predominantly African American crowd, quoted Mr. Romney as saying in his first 100 days as president that "he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street." Then the vice president added with a grin: "They're going to put y'all back in chains!"

> And when politicians call each other Nazis, or when Joe Biden claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to re-enslave black people?

Name calling isn't incitement to violence. Can you point to the specific instances of violence you are talking about and the speech that inspired them?

The issue here is that this isn't theoretical. Trump actually spoke to a real mob, in person, told them to march to the capitol, and then praised him once they had invaded and sacked it during a joint session of congress. Given that, yes, we look at his speech with much less tolerant criteria. He wasn't just spouting off, he is at least a proximate cause of a direct attack on our seat of government.

What a news-bubble you live in. Multiple cities burned over the summer while many politicians, activist, and newspapers encouraged protests. Numerous Trump supporters were assaulted. At least two Trump supporters were shot to death.

The fact that you don’t know and don’t care about this shows in what politically-biased bad faith you’re operating.

I repeat: Can you point to the specific instances of violence you are talking about and the speech that inspired them?

We both know the game you’re going to play. I’ll give you the name of the murdered man, the murderer aligned with Antifa, and a long list of times Joe Biden refused to condemn Antifa violence, and language from city mayors calling Trump-supporters unamerican, unwelcome, and threats to their city. I’ll say it clearly condoned violence and you’ll say it didn’t. And that’s exactly my point. You want to use a vague wishy-washy standard that you can use to suppress political opinions you disagree while letting political opinions you like slip by. Stop trying to censor speech. It’s 2021, not the dark ages. Grow up.

I repeat: Can you point to the specific instances of violence you are talking about and the speech that inspired them?

The fact that you don’t know which murders I’m taking about already speaks volumes about your myopic news bubble. Or maybe you do know which murders I’m talking about and you just want to continue playing a moving-the-goal post game. Tedious.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler: “I vehemently oppose what the Proud Boys and those associated with them stand for, and I will not tolerate hate speech and the damage it does in our city. White nationalists, particularly those coming to our city armed, threaten the safety of Portlanders and are not welcome here.”

The mayor calls a group of people demonstrating in his city hateful, “not welcome” and “threats to safety”. Not long after, a Patriot Prayer demonstrator Aaron Danielson was the victim of a pre-meditated murder by a man who described himself as “100% Antifa”. Joe Biden was asked on multiple occasions to condemn Antifa, and he refused, instead only generically condemned violence... exactly the same criticism leveled against Trump. I can cry and whine like you that Ted Wheeler and Joe Biden caused murder, but I’m not a baby. I’m not going to make speech illegal because I don’t like its content. Punish actual crimes, not speech you don’t like.

So, get out of your bubble and stop attacking freedom of expression, the most essential of freedoms.

See for yourself:

https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli...

Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair characterization.

Can you explain? I don't think it's constructive to hide behind analogy and cliche when you could come out and tell us the causes and effects that you think are happening here.

I think the video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence. Hence the claim it violates their terms of service.

"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th."

If that's an incision of violence, then I'm sure you will apply such interpretations equally to other statements? Any time there's a riot, block the leaders of whatever party they riot on behalf of?

I get that you want to shoehorn in a TOS violation, but it's really not. But I also get that it's important for him to not have a platform right now. I'm just not into this Orwellian twist of rules/words/interpretations to try to justify the fact that we just aren't safe with him broadcasting his lies anymore.

Why do you think it's "hiding"? analogies have a way to explain things to people who don't have context, it's a tool to remove obfuscation, not add more layers.

That only true when it serves to augment the plain English truth. When that's omitted, it's what I dare say is a "Trumpian" method of obscuring reality.

But the plain english truth is the Trump video. The analogy helps explain what people are observing.

When people say "i don't have a problem with what he said, because he said for people to go home" the analogy helps ground the idea that while he may have said go home, he also said things that would rile them up. Hence the taking a log off the fire while adding gasoline analogy. It's not obfuscation. Trump's message was the obfuscation.

So what you observe is that people take a quote out of context, and try to use that to misinform people. Then put the quote in-context to support your position. Don't give different obfuscating garbage.

It's not garbage. It's not obfuscation. It seems like you're the only one with a problem with this analogy.

If you want validation for just hurling political opinions with no justification, Reddit will get you a lot more karma.

So basically you are saying:

- Asking for peace isn’t enough

- And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud?

Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?

Watch the video. He spends JUST enough time saying 'go home peacefully' that someone can say he did that. However he spends all the actual time and energy saying the exact opposite - it was stolen, fight for me, etc.

It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional call to arms with a fig leaf on it.

These people aren't there because they think it's unimportant. They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds. Insulting would only lead to anger.

You have to acknowledge the feelings of the other individual before they'll listen. They see themselves as good, honorable people, so you address them as such. Once you have their attention in an agreeable manner (instead of an antagonistic manner), you can address the issue at hand.

Trump did precisely this. He empathized with them and their cause. After he had an agreeable mood somewhat established, he then appealed to consequences.

If he hadn't asked them to stop, congress' attempt to reconvene would have no doubt been interrupted as well. The fact that didn't happen goes a long way against the claim that it was a call to violence.

> They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds.

That’s not how people work. Imagine for a second that he did come out and say that he was wrong about the fraud claims (“we looked into it and didn’t find anything”) and conceded the election. Do you honestly believe not a single one of his supporters would fall in line? There are a few people who are too far gone, but it’s entirely disingenuous to suggest he has no power over this. Not holding rallies would help a lot too. No, this is all squarely at his feet.

They only reason why they believe the election was stolen in the first place is because Trump has been lying about it for the past two months. He is the root cause. He could end this easily, but he won’t.

Indeed asking for peace isn't enough if you're going to fan the flames in the same speech. That wasn't the time to reassert the legitimacy of his supporters' motives, he's not any citizen, the President of the United States should have sought to de-escalate the situation created by his mass movement in the US capital first and only.

The time to talk about their struggle was another. And that without going into the legitimacy of him disputing the election results or even the legitimacy of him leading a revolutionary movement at this point.

You're misunderstanding.

What he should have done was strongly condemn the violence and call for the people to go home immediately and peacefully.

And nothing else. With no softening weasel words.

He would be able to keep believing his claims of election fraud uninterrupted. And continue to pursuing them, just after the violent insurrection was diffused, not during it.

It's important to note that the insurrection was any least partially incited by his claims of election fraud, so repeating them in that context was extremely dangerous.

Here are the definitions of the words 'incite' and 'violence'

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws

I agree he should have strongly condemned those actions and asked them to leave immediately. But I also don't see any evidence that he incited violence. Alleging election fraud, or encouraging people to protest are not the same as inciting violence. I'm open to evidence of Trump inciting violence, but thus far no one has been able to provide it.

I think you should watch the speeches given at the event immediately prior to the rioters going to the capitol building and violently seizing it, including Trump's.

It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms.

However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here.

Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.

Thanks for the response. For me, that's not strong enough a case to say that Trump's social media posts should be censored or blocked. I simply don't see it as incitement of violence. His claims of fraud are misleading for sure, but if the standard is around "violence" specifically, I feel that blame cannot be laid at his feet in a provable manner - because this is a highly political, highly emotional situation, I am looking for evidence that would almost meet a legal standard, like beyond a reasonable doubt (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reas...).

I also think the actions taken by tech companies here reflects a double-standard. For example, why isn't AOC being blocked for supporting rioting? Why weren't Democrats called out for attacks on federal property in Portland, Seattle, and other cities? Look at https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/aocs-comms-director-ask... for an exploration of this.

To me, it just looks like big tech companies picking winners and losers in an ongoing political and cultural war, and are reacting to societal or political pressures in taking action rather than acting in any principled manner.

It's a false equivalence.

Here's the AOC quote being referenced:

> "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable… that’s the point."

Where in this statement is there any incitement for rioting or violence?

Now let's take a look at Trump's actions on Wednesday[1]:

> "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough and we will not take it any more"

> "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

This is how Trump described the rioters:

> "These are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."

Contrast this with Pence's response:

> "This attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-trump-in-final-weeks-inc...

> The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

This is a thinly-veiled statement in support of protesters engaging in criminal activity to get their way politically. That is the dictionary definition of terrorism (which the capitol incident also qualifies for). I agree it isn't explicit in stating that. But Trump's statement doesn't explicitly call for criminal activity either.

His statements are not asking for violence but asking to challenge the results and fight for what you want politically. That's what every side does in every political confrontation. You COULD also read it as a thinly-veiled statement pushing for violence. But it is entirely subjective to label one that way but not the other. And therefore, big tech companies should hold BOTH AOC and Trump to the same exact standard, or neither.

All that aside, I agree Pence's statement is better and wish Trump was more forceful in condemning these acts and left the "explanations" out.

> For me, that's not strong enough a case to say that Trump's social media posts should be censored or blocked.

One clarification: Trump's accounts were not blocked for his speech or event before the riot. They were blocked for his response during the riot.

E.g. during the riot he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

So there's a little at the end that is good. But he mostly expresses that the violent insurrection is justified, praises the perpetrators, and suggest that they are the victims. He posted a video with similar sentiments as well. This was while it was still on-going.

> I am looking for evidence that would almost meet a legal standard

Well, this is the Internet, not a court of law. So you will not and cannot get what you’re looking for here.

IMO, Trump should face criminal courts of law, though I have little faith it will happen.

Would it be so bad to stop believing his claim of fraud after all such claims have been proven in court to be false?

At what point should a person stop believing their own claims?

I'm saying this video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence.

So you’re ok with disenfranchising people’s genuine dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run?

What’s genuine about it? It was litigated in nearly a hundred court cases, many of which had conservative political appointee judges. No evidence. No actual claims of fraud because the lawyers want to keep their bar and know the claims are fraudulent.

Trump’s base is upset that they lost the election. Nothing more.

The “no evidence” statement is demonstrably false.

The truth matters. It isn't that their concerns were railroaded or not heard. There were dozens of court cases, the justice department and state authorities investigated. When that turns up nothing, you can't just keep entertaining debunked notions that our democratic system is rigged.

Their concerns were railroaded and not heard. The “no evidence” idea is demonstrably false.

I'm ok with removing users that violate the terms of service even if they are presidents.

You're trying to change the context here. Trump's supporters weren't expressing their dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run. They were violently seizing the capitol building to prevent the constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power.

If only those breaking the law were banned that wouldn’t be a problem. What about those who never attended, never spoke about it, and merely expressed dissatisfaction with the election? Why were they banned?

> genuine dissatisfaction with

... the way President Trump claimed without evidence the elections were run.

Two bedrocks of democracy are that elections are fair so that every vote is counted, and that the people's freedom of speech outweighs the government's freedom of speech, so that governments cannot pull the kind of manipulation and deception that President Trump has been doing so successfully.

Those are the bedrock of democracy? Please cite your sources.

The mob started at a “Stop the Steal” Trump Rally where DJT personally used mob boss speak about it “not being so nice for some senators” and quickly following up with calls to not be weak.

“Go to the capital and be strong so the legislators can’t steal our victory.”

*several hours later, after they’ve broken into the capital and terrorized the legislation

“Go home, but they did steal the election and you’re special and we love you.”

That was him approving of their actions. That was him saying what they did was what he wanted and he would happily see them go further. Not picking up on this pattern in the past 4 years doesn’t make you crazy, but it does mean you aren’t paying close attention.

This is a personal insult and does not elevate the level of discourse here. Please remove this.

After asking: "Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?" the answer 'You're crazy' should be acceptable.

They aren't being impartial here. They want the rules unevenly enforced to push their political agenda; not very HN-like.

Not according to the HN rules. Either follow the rules or don’t post.

No you're not crazy just disingenuous.

Meaning is transmitted not just by the words you use. For example by being sarcastic you can make the words mean the opposite of what their plain meaning is.

Trump made clear how he felt, and his words did not reflect that.

You’re not crazy, their bias really is that obvious.

He was intentionally continuing to fan the flames of insurrection using specific lies about the status of the election, while at the same time pretending to ask them to peacefully disperse.

This seems pretty obvious?

Am guessing you created that throwaway account because you know well how this comment makes you look, but you won't own up to it.

For months Trump has asserted that mail-in voting is intrinsically insecure and fraudulent. He's also been parroting baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the election. Telling his supporters their vote is being suppressed by all the parties that refuse to go along with his insane demands. These parties include: state and federal governments, private companies that build voting machines, poll workers, Republican secretaries of state, state and federal courts, a complicit press, and now even the vice president.

If you believe what Trump says then you must believe that the entire system of democratic representation has broken down. Under this mindset it makes sense to resort to violent action and storm the capitol - what other recourse do you have? That's why rioters left a "WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN" note on Pelosi's desk. And when Trump says the loves and supports the rioters, that's the mindset he's reinforcing and encouraging.

When Trump says everyone should go home - why should we treat that statement as normative? When virtually everything else this man has said agitates and encourages insurrection, why should we glom onto this one positive statement?

> The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.

The account bans are not just because of this one video considered in isolation. The bans are happening because of the systematic anti-democratic and seditious behavior of the president and his campaign.

It's like saying: your spouse is being assaulted, stay peaceful and go home.

Yes, while also providing encouragement for those illegally entering the capital by calling them "loved" and "special".

Wait, seriously why is he banned though?

Because he did not actually provide a statement condemning the riot that took place and said several things that are being interpreted (by both his followers and his opposition) as supporting the behavior.

(Please try not to read this in a condescending way): There is a difference between "You need to leave the capital building immediately. You are breaking the law and this will not be tolerated" (an approximation of the message many officials offered). and "Please go home. You are loved and you are special to this movement" (approximation of Trump's statement)

FWIW, one "difference" between the two statements is that the former is the kind of thing that makes people more angry and the latter is the kind of thing that might actually make someone feel heard enough to go home; it just isn't somehow as obvious to me--a stark leftist, btw, who is downright socialist--that this is somehow finally the thing Trump said which should be blocked.

Are there any other HN folks out there who are confused by this?

If I recall watching it, he asked everyone to go home and peacefully.

It seems the real issue is he won’t accept fraud didn’t happen and people are conflating that with calls to violence.

Doesn’t feel genuine or real.

There has to be people reading this thinking WTF too.

You're the not only one. He was using simple persuasion to encourage them to go home peacefully.

"I understand why you're unhappy but it's time to return home peacefully" is much more persuasive than "You are flat out wrong and it's time to return home peacefully". It's negotiation 101: validate the other's feelings if you want to persuade, even if you don't agree with those feelings.

Why were Trump's supporters protesting?

Why did they shove police officers and tear down barricades, break windows and smash doors?

Why did they illegally enter government buildings?

The answer to all of these is a mistaken belief that the election was not legitimate, due to President Trump's claims without evidence that there was widespread fraud. Their actions were made believing that the election was being stolen. Their actions were justified by that belief. You cannot reinforce the reasons why they are there with any genuine belief that it will inspire peace and retreat!

I agree, I'm confused. He's urging against violence, but standing by his claims of fraud. But people are claiming that's not what he's "really" saying. OK.. so I can basically say the same thing about anyone saying anything. Who decides what he "really" means?

Just so I won't be downvoted, I'm not a fan of Trump.

We've had a full two months for election irregularities to be litigated in the courts, and scrutinized in the court of public opinion. The only results that bubbled to the top were the same oft-repeated grand claims, without much of anything backing them up. If there were substantive arguments to be made, Trump's legal team has failed to present them. At this point two months later, the "fraud" narrative is nothing more than a rallying cry. So yes, continuing to push the fake fraud claim is direct incitement of that mob.

I think the point is that after his supporters broke the law and stormed the capitol, interrupting a constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power, he told them:

> "Remember this day forever!"

Thus approving of the actions that already occurred and telling them that the crimes that they committed would be justified by history looking back at what they have done. It in no way deescalates the risk of future conflicts.

That's honestly just an interpretation of it. He could just mean "remember this day of protest against the establishment". Everyone just reads everything he says with their own biases.

I don't think that's inherently wrong, just let's not ban people based on our own biases.

All of the intepretations of the events that happened yesterday could be equally uncharitably interpreted of BLM with the riots, violence, and protests across the country. I mean, they forcefully took over an entire city zone at one point.

Well that is the cleverness of most trump statements, toe the line, give a nod to your side, but also retain deniability. If you don't start interpreting, you get into a trap in which you will be outfoxed by anyone who can toe lines enough to not blatantly incriminate themselves.

As for BLM, personally I was never very sympathetic to the portions of protests/riots that caused violence.

Dog whistles work because they proved the fig leaf of plausible deniability. Trump's presidency has been a series of dog whistles. Why would it have stopped just because he lost an election?

You are correct the video all the platforms are using to justify the bans explicitly asked people to go home. Previously he had urged them to be peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident.

edit: Leaving my comment intact as there are people who have replied. VBProgrammer pointed out that a portion of my statement is not true. This morning the DC police revealed two officers were hospitalized with injuries and one was described as having serious injuries while 12 others suffered other injuries.

Then doubling down on the narrative that drives these people, one that is directly opposed to peaceful transfer of power: the illegitimacy of the election results. That's an incredibly dangerous message from the President of the United States, he's telling them to go home in one sentence and riling them up in the other, that encourages further insurrection around his persona.

Facebook is in the right not to allow that spark when whole situation is a powder keg.

This really reminds me of Antony's "Friends, romans, countrymen..." speech that is ostensibly peaceful and respectful but is actually riling up the crowd.

People are reacting negatively to this comment (and rightly so) because your representation of what was said in the video does not match the tone, or underlying message delivered by said video.

The video was the equivalent of watching a kid, who has been rightly verbally disciplined by a parent, and who has been told they must apologize to their sibling/friend/whatever, so that kid says "Ok ok I'm SORRY", but immediately starts to rationalize/explain away why they were still right.

> explicitly asked people to go home

The words were said, but the sentiment and subsequent message told the viewer the opposite. "Go home" ... "but you're loved/special and I understand you, wink wink". The equivalent of "SORRY" ... "(but I'm really not sorry...)".

Others have already reacted to the comment about "peaceful" behavior and injuries, and those comments reflect my thoughts, so I won't expand on them here.

That's false. At least 14 officers hurt. See for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/d-c-mayor-issues-order-extending-...

That's disingenuous.

Only 2 officers required hospitalization. For comparison, there were many hospitalizations every single night of the 90-ish day Antifa seige of the Oregon federal courthouse.

In Oregon, Antifa were blasting officers with fireworks, going after them with hammers, polearms, shields, etc. We didn't see that in DC either. Instead we find the police generally getting along with the overwhelming majority of protesters.

Even 9 guns is nothing worth mentioning statistically. If those people had been interested in causing serious harm, almost all of them could have shown up with AR-15s. Hundreds of thousands of people with AR-15s could easily overpower any troops that could have been sent into the area. The fact that we didn't see this once again plays against the media's claims of a coup attempt.

They brought bombs and a cooler full of molotov cocktails. This was a planned violent activity

>peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident.

At least one Capitol police officer is dead. Beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.

Many of the folks arrested had cable ties similar to those used by police to "handcuff" people. One insurrectionist was found with materials to make molotov cocktails.

Destroying and stealing is not "peaceful", it's just not "violent against people".

It is, in the new 2020 definition.

I’m sorry and I’m being serious.

Why is he banned then?

Because the entire attack on Capitol yesterday can be tied directly to the speech he has made just before it. Just because no police/staff were harmed doesn't make it ok - after all, destruction of federal property and buildings carries a potential 10 year imprisonment penalty.

So not only he's encouraging criminal actions, but after these actions occurs he tells these criminals that he loves them. And yes, tells them to go home - great, but that's not a redeeming factor here.

So......is it still not clear why he's banned?

Fact check: Several police officers were harmed/treated for injuries. The crowd used chemical weapons (pepper/bear spray) on officers at several different times during the riot. No less than 2 improvised explosives were recovered from the scene. Please don't give into the "peaceful" narrative.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...

Some of them were also armed with assault rifles, others with blunt weapons like baseball bats. And they were stupid enough to get filmed on camera and partly even incriminated themselves afterwards by admitting the crime and providing their real names in front of the camera. It's pretty crazy, if you think about it.

Ok, yeah, my mistake for just repeating a stupid comment then. Thanks for correcting it.

His commentary on election fraud is seen as fueling the riot. Paraphrasing, the video comes across as: "you should go home. You're special and I love you. This is a fraudulent, illegitimate election and america is being stolen from you"

It's like people who start sentences with "no offense, but"

He's no longer useful to them for generating traffic and user data.

His speech condone their actions at first and then asks them to be calm and go home. You can't have it both ways.

Because the above post is a misrepresentation of what was said.