So perhaps it is a huge stretch to some, but we need to remember it is also not a stretch at all to many, especially given the recent events. Therein lies the danger.
Wow, it would have never occurred to me to read it like this, but then I am hopeless at teasing out hidden meanings from what people say. To me, this is just so consistent with the overall picture of him that's been consistently painted in the media, and which he only verifies by his own behavior — that of a stubborn, spoilt, petulant child — that I can't but take his words at face value, i.e. that he's informing the world that he won't show up because of spite.
I am also amused that there seems to be a non-negligible amount of people who apparently care whether he will or will not attend the ceremony. To a foreigner like me, it just sounds so insignificant and puny.
Few people will start a riot if he is there transferring power to the new president.
A legion of people will show up to disrupt the proceedings if he isn’t.
could be that and also him accidentally stoking the flames of stochastic terror.
Yes. He could have accepted the results of the election and not promoted conspiracies.
All 70 million?
So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way. And in their heads, this ban only gives them more "proof" that they are right.
>from discord: "While there is no evidence of the server being used to organize the Jan 6 riots, Discord decided to ban the entire server today due to its overt connection to an online forum used to incite violence and plan an armed insurrection in the United States"
Cloudfare is still serving thedonald.win though.
And yet only Trump attracts this sort of lunatic following. Let's be honest, he does speak in a particular way and avoids statements with clear interpretations. And arguably he actively plays with the occult crowd's obsession with hidden meanings and symbolism.
Fact is, his communications do have severe, real consequences and he fails to recognize that. It is therefore completely irrelevant how something could possibly interpreted otherwise. Human communication doesn't work like that. There is context, state and prediction, which cannot be ignored.
They thought that Trump's tweet about transition meant that he would fire Pence and that's the transition, applying numerology.
At this point no matter what he says it's dangerous because of the thousands (millions?) of deranged psychopathic terrorists he has created who read them and act violently no matter what he says.
While I agree with your emotions, the use of the word "insane" might be counterproductive. As a group, we're mostly optimistic, trying to find the best interpretation of actions.
"Insane" implies that these people are not in control of themselves or their actions. That's not what is going on: they are fully in control and are CHOOSING to feed themselves with conspiracy theories... hoping to undo the 2020 election.
I don't know what word to use to describe them. Conspirators might be more accurate and helpful.
Ex:
> I think that's important to contextualize: these people are conspirators and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.
By and large, these people are NOT suffering from any mental illness. They'll be going to work on Monday, and will probably take off this weekend, maybe go to Church on Sunday. They are choosing to participate in the conspiracy.
Are they really in control? That word is too coarse I think for the situation. HN talks all the time about the power of social media, the studies showing quick radicalization, etc. That implies some level of manipulation e.g. not 100% free will.
That doesn't mean I'm responsible for your actions or your words. We draw the line at individual responsibility for a reason. Its not perfect, but the buck stops at your own actions.
------
I'm sure you trust in a fair number of leaders. I don't know who your role models are, but if they started calling for violent insurrection, it would be your choice whether to follow them down that path of degeneracy.
I suggest “highly suggestible.”
I'm settling on "brainwashed" for now. "Insane" colloquially removes the sense of responsibility and even has a positive connotation at times. Brainwashed captures the precise situation best.
Brainwashed individuals are still responsible for their actions. But we recognize the outside influence upon their actions. We can use the word brainwashed to recognize that these individuals still deserve punishment, but also recognize that there's a greater-source of influence we also must dismantle.
---------
The dude who has 10,000 edits on Wikipedia is "insane". A runner who completes 4:40 mile run is "insane". The mob who stormed the Capitol are BRAINWASHED.
"Brainwashed" fits better than "insane".
Its about stopping the messages Trump would have sent next two weeks. You know, when the attacks on the inauguration are planned (The 17th is also popping up as another attack date, but I dunno if that has any actual symbolism going on...)
The latest video that Trump posted there was that the protestors will be prosecuted and that he basically concedes and will transition power over to Biden. At no point, including his latest tweets on the @POTUS account that were deleted within minutes, have I seen anything that would suggest that he's planning any kind of "attack". And in fact, I see it the opposite way. If my reading of the situation is correct, he's trying to control the damage and calm down his base precisely so nothing like this will happen, because he believes that there is still future for him, as the tweet in question suggest. It could very well be that he was the only person that was keeping his supporters from starting the actual uprising and not whatever the Capitol thing was. And now it might be gone.
Obviously that's my opinion, but if you actually don't want any violence to happen, you better hope that I'm wrong about this.
Parlor / thedonald.win are planning it. The question is whether or not the president will take advantage of those groups and try to coordinate them better.
Without a head, those groups ability to coordinate an attack would be hampered.
Google and Apple are banning parlor and other apps too, cutting off cell phone traffic.
But that was my immediate first thought, and likely that of a large number of folks.
The most powerful person on the planet should be held to a higher standard than just blating out whatever is on his mind.
However, suppose that Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barack Obama had declined to attend the inauguration of there predecessors. That would surely trigger a crisis worthy of de-platforming. We’ve become somewhat numb to this sort of thing.
I guess my second draft would have said, “We’ve allowed DJT a platform because he is the President of the United States. In light of all that he has said on Twitter over the last 10+ years, though, he is guilty of inciting hate and violence among his followers. [Cite myriad tweets and cases.] We were going to wait until he left office to suspend his account. In light of his most recent tweets indicating that he would not attend the inauguration, we think it prudent to move up this timeline...”
What? Let's say Obama had declined to attend Trump's inauguration. I don't think Twitter would ban him for that.
He was on an aircraft flying to Texas. This is memorable because the FAA had to modify software to support the callsign of an aircraft changing during flight, in this case from Air Force One to something else.
> Outgoing President George W. Bush, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney, former presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and former vice presidents Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, and Al Gore, along with their respective wives, attended the inauguration...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Barack...
https://www.defense.gov/observe/photo-gallery/igphoto/200115...
We ban accounts that set flames like this, regardless of what color the flames are. No more of this please.
https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-di...
So 270 violent protests in that 2 month span then? Not trivial.
If 10,000 people march through a city and one of the 10,000 sprays graffiti on a single store or breaks one window, most would not call that on the whole a "violent protest." How many were in that category and how many had truly widespread violence or more severe destruction? I'd love to see a source capturing that. Anecdotally though, in online discussion I often see people treating it as a given that BLM protests laid waste to whole neighborhoods in multiple cities, which seems more like flat-out misinformation...
It's called an echo chamber, and you should try to escape it if you can.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Good luck.
> It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please join us in reality when you're ready.
I rest my case. I was suggesting that you take your own advice, instead of throwing stones in glass houses.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There's another form of abuse, too: your comment history looks like you're using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not ok—it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do that. If you want more explanation of why, you can find many via https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
But yes, there is a large and qualitative difference between a riot with property damage and attempting a full on coup d'etat. The latter is a crime against the very heart of society.
To be clear, if the Trump supporters had stood outside Capitol and protested, even violently, it would not have been such a momentuous thing. Crossing the Rubicon indeed.
Then the President told the crowd at the rally to march with him to the capitol to pressure Congress into overturning the election results.
People then marched down to the capitol, broke into it, killed a police officer, and forced congress to evacuate. When asked why, rioters stated they were trying to prevent Congress from certifying the results.
It was a failed attempt at a coup, and a very bad attempt at a coup. It was still an attempt though.
Aside from all those frightening cases, it seems clear that there was a broadly shared goal was to "stop the steal" by preventing Congress from making progress in the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Maybe most of them had few concrete ideas how they'd accomplish that aim once inside the building, but they nonetheless were aiming to overturn an election and block Biden from becoming President - and if successful that absolutely is a coup.
What mental gymnastics led you to this conclusion? It's obvious that the comment was pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy that pervades this discussion.
What mental gymnastics led you to this conclusion? It's obvious his comment was attempting to justify the insurrection on Capitol Hill.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: your comment history is unfortunately replete with this kind of abuse. We already asked you to stop [1], and you've clearly been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, which is another thing we ban accounts for [2], regardless of which ideology they're battling for. So I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Destroying the commons like this is profoundly not ok. It does no good and helps no one. Having this place descend into the hell realms is not in your interest either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24538396
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
What the heck
How about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tts1q9TgXxg
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...
According to Capitol police, the rioters "actively attacked United States Capitol Police Officers and other uniformed law enforcement officers with metal pipes, discharged chemical irritants, and took up other weapons against our officers."
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/statement-s...
Except they did[0].
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/08/capito...
Absolutely true. The media has hoodwinked the public.
But the real problem, Trump is calling for a coup and the system around that is broken does need to be addressed.
How do you deal what a public to stupid to deal with that? Trump style fool them into thinking a real coup attempt happened?
It's a tug of war over the general population to stupid to believe anything in the media or who stupidly believe everything in the media.
And now, somehow we are in a position private businesses have the power.
Do you see no similarities at all?
The full comments in the post detail similar reasoning.
Update: As many people have pointed out (and as the Twitter post mentions), the 2nd tweet could also be interpreted as emphasizing that it would be safe to commit further violence at an event that he won't be attending. This is certainly a much more grave concern than the one I mentioned above.
But now as I write this, I do realize, he didn't need to announce his no-show 12 days beforehand, he can just quietly not show up on the day, so this tweet does seem to be more of a signal to... well, incredibly, it's a signal for the members of his cult that they can attack the inauguration!
Encouraging a violent attack on the US Capitol building seems like a pretty good excuse to impeach.
And the implication that there's more to come if the machinery of government isn't handed over in full to the leader of the insurrection.
However, if the question is about impeachement: Yes. There's more than enough reason to go through with it. In the broader context of how the President has been lying to his supporters about election fraud, telling them to stop the steal, and that he will never concede. The President is on record trying to strong-arm election officials in Georgia to find him 11,780 votes, the exact number that would overturn the state.
No, he does not say that they need to investigate. He wants them to find him the votes because he knows he won it. And that is just what has happened in the past week.
It's not just Twitter claiming Trump bears responsibility, it's Mcconnell, Pence, Murkowski, WSJ, and other former Trump allies. It's the perpetrators themselves claiming fealty to Trump.
Feel free to point us to where rioters took over downtown Portland at the behest of and in allegiance to Mayor Wheeler.
There's a difference between encouraging joining a peaceful protest, and having tweeted for weeks about 6th of January going to be big, getting the crowd mad by telling them for 70 minutes how they've been defrauded, and then telling them where to go and what to do:
"So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give... The Democrats are hopeless, They're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."
Of course he didn't explicitly say "Go there and break the windows, beat some cops up and threaten our lawmakers with violence", but geez, he basically said "let's intimidate them".
Yeah yeah, of course you Trump defender are going to say "He didn't say anything bad, it's not his fault that his followers interpreted things differently...".
Yes, if you view everything he says with the benefit of hindsight and the most uncharitable context possible, which has pretty much been the strategy from day one, you can interpret it that way. And whatever happened to the BLM riot days, where a minority of the protestors caused violence but oh no, we can't paint everyone with the same brush. You may be shocked to realize this but only a minority of the protesters actually went in to the capitol. Apparently the vast majority of the protesters weren't able to decipher Trump's coded language like seemingly everyone else can. That's really strange.
> There's a difference between encouraging joining a peaceful protest
But here's the problem: when there are repeated instances of peaceful protests devolving into looting and rioting, isn't there some point at which you should know that encouraging yet another BLM protest makes you responsible for what it turns in to?
And you kinda sidestepped the question about CHAZ. When the mayor rejects the president's offer of the National Guard to control the, ya know, illegal occupation of several city blocks and lets CHAZ continue after repeated acts of crime in the area that culminated in two deaths... why aren't they held responsible? Why is THAT considered some unforeseen consequence of protesting but Trump's is an open-and-shut case of "he knew it would happen and wanted it to"?
The mayor of Portland also rejecting Trump's NG offer and allowed rioting to continue for two months. At what point -- maybe day 35 of 60? -- does the mayor become responsible for what happened by rejecting the initial NG support?
I'm hoping you understand what I'm getting at, it's that certain people get very charitable interpretations of their actions while certain others don't.
That's what you're doing isn't it. MAGA riot? "Ooh it was just a minority...". "Oh let's view what Trump said with a charitable context" Despite the context of 4+ years of him lying, defending white supremacists, and stoking misinformation and keeping his supporters pissed off.
Well, it's useless to debate with you, you're brainwashed. Sure, on the other hand you can say I'm brainwashed, go ahead and go and claim you won in this debate.
Part of me agrees with you that there is no point at this point and it'll just anger his base. The other part remembers just how much power the president has and thinks at this point worrying what his base thinks is pointless. Anyone left can't really get any more riled up.
At this point: What's the difference?
They're convinced democrats are blood-drinking satan-worshipping pedophiles, and that the election was fraudulent because the ghost of Hugo Chavez activated The Algorithm on the Dominion machines which moved votes from Trump to Biden through a server in Germany and a satellite in Italy.
> Anyone left can't really get any more riled up.
Exactly.
The president incited a violent insurrectionist mob to storm the Capitol, forcing the lawfully elected government representatives to flee and postpone their duty. He refused to call in the national guard to secure the Capitol, and published a video saying he loves the rioters instead.
And then people are arguing that you shouldn't go ahead with impeachment because of political calculations that it might fail.
What is the thing for if not exactly this?!?
You're leaving out that politicians who have encouraged people to attend BLM protests often encourage people to assembly peacefully but to make their voices heard. I haven't seen anywhere prior to the attack on the Capitol building where Trump urged his followers to be peaceful. He has done the opposite, which allowed his followers to infer that he would support acts of violence.
Secondly, the real point of impeachment probably isn't to remove, so much as it is to give the Senate a credible threat to use to rein Trump in. I opposed impeachment (both times --- on the politics, not the merits) but seen in that light it makes a lot of sense.
So day 1 was an exaggeration but yeah, the House could indict a president much earlier on if ultimately the point is to let the Senate keep the reigns on him for everything thereafter.
And in addition to the fact that this aught to be illegal, I don't think it makes sense as a scenario. With this House/Senate/Presidency, the same threat of conviction by the Senate is always there, because as soon as the Senate signals they'll convict Trump the House'll impeach Trump.
And also the fact that all the other plans to "reign Trump in" over the years led Senate Republicans to exactly where they were on Wednesday, with Trump sending rioters to their chamber, gallows erected outside and a neo-Viking sitting in Pence's chair. If they're not going to acquit again then I don't understand why they wouldn't just be done with Trump and convict him on this rather than something later in the week.
Worse, the old tenant has the nuclear codes.
I wanted to ask what if something big happens now, like an ISIS attack, but I suppose this administration has been so dumb the last 4 years, someone else lower in the chain of command can deal it it.
On the topic of chain of command, from Obama's latest book:
> What I was quickly discovering about the presidency was that no problem that landed on my desk, foreign or domestic, had a clean, 100 percent solution. If it had, someone else down the chain of command would have solved it already. Instead, I was constantly dealing with probabilities: a 70 percent chance, say, that a decision to do nothing would end in disaster; a 55 percent chance that this approach versus that one might solve the problem (with a 0 percent chance that it would work out exactly as intended); a 30 percent chance that whatever we chose wouldn’t work at all, along with a 15 percent chance that it would make the problem worse.
The middle management & line workers of Twitter can monetize their small Twitter stock portfolios pretty quick without shifting the market all that much. Jack, on the other hand, would take a major hit if he tried to sell off his.
=edit=
Clarification on content_sesh's good point: I don't assume whether Jack agrees or disagrees with Trump's points. They are billionaires, might be "frenemies" for all we know. I do assume Jack likes a cash-cow for his major property, Twitter - and tries to balance the upsides & downsides of hosting Trump's contentious content.
edit to clarify in response to parent's edit (lol):
I don't doubt Twitter enjoyed being the primary platform for our extremely online president. I was getting at the "political opponents" thing. I feel there's a tendency where people like Jack and Zuckerburg get categorized as "not on the right politically", because they work in tech and live in California I guess. I disagree with that characterization, and my main reason is how they've allowed their platforms to be used.
For a very long time now, I've personally seen Twitter being used to amplify regressive, right-wing views while quashing (via suspension or permanent suspension) leftist voices that challenge them. The best way I can describe it succinctly would be a pervasive double-standard when applying their rules. So I, personally, specifically do not believe that Jack or Twitter leadership have aligned themselves politically against the right.
There's clear and strong undercurrent of Twitter employees and middle management expressing opposition to Trump, and also expressing sympathy to various left wing causes. Similar to other tech firms, like Google or Facebook.
That's why I point out conflict of interest inside Twitter. Might be partly ownership stake matter, partly cultural matter - employees tend to be a generation younger than management, and tend to have gone through a different path through life.
We don't know the Minoan language, and we get by. But that doesn't mean we don't value knowing Greek.
Dumping him now allows Twitter to virtue signal and avoid looking like an enabler of literal violence, all while giving up virtually nothing in return.
Kind of like how his cabinet members are now resigning. No big loss for them, as they’ll be out of a job shortly anyway. Might as well “stand up to him” while they still have the opportunity to reap political kudos.
If you have any evidence of Twitter's motivations, please post it. A leak of the internal e-mail traffic on this decision, if published, would be fascinating.
If not- If you're just asserting as fact your own assumptions about a company whose decision you don't like, then please go troll elsewhere.
Unless you are the one making them, apparently.
I’m not trolling. And I made no “accusations”. I have no objection to Twitter’s decision. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
I do not support or endorse Trump or his cronies.
Actions have consequences.
I'll allow you to make up your own mind as to whether a reasonable person could determine there was a proximate cause between his tweeting and the violent acts on 6 January.
Donald Trump has consistently used his Twitter account to demonise the people that were in the building that was attacked. He suggested that the Democratic Party, in coalition with a supposed 'deep state', systematically rigged an election. He posted and retweeted outrageous conspiracies about how these forces worked to steal the election and abrogate the American constitution.
More than that, he used his Twitter account to promote the very rally that preceded the act of insurrection.
> I hope the Democrats, and even more importantly, the weak and ineffective RINO section of the Republican Party, are looking at the thousands of people pouring into D.C. They won’t stand for a landslide election victory to be stolen. @senatemajldr @JohnCornyn @SenJohnThune
> Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen by emboldened Radical Left Democrats. Our Country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore! We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
> The “Surrender Caucus” within the Republican Party will go down in infamy as weak and ineffective “guardians” of our Nation, who were willing to accept the certification of fraudulent presidential numbers!
> How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG. You will see the real numbers tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET!
> Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
> “Georgia election data, just revealed, shows that over 17,000 votes illegally flipped from Trump to Biden.” @OANN This alone (there are many other irregularities) is enough to easily “swing Georgia to Trump”. #StopTheSteal @HawleyMO @SenTedCruz @Jim_Jordan
> The number of cases and deaths of the China Virus is far exaggerated in the United States because of @CDCgov’s ridiculous method of determination compared to other countries, many of whom report, purposely, very inaccurately and low. “When in doubt, call it Covid.” Fake News!
> An attempt to steal a landslide win. Can’t let it happen! https://t.co/sKn4iTjUy0
> ....that, quite frankly, didn’t have much of a chance, like 7, 8 or 9. The Presidential Election was Rigged with hundreds of thousands of ballots mysteriously flowing into Swing States very late at night as everyone thought the election was easily won by me. There were many....
> I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early — doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS! https://t.co/k4blXESc0c
> RT @AmyKremer: We are excited to announce the site of our January 6th event will be The Ellipse in the President’s Park, just steps from th…
Context matters.
Now there’s a terrifying thought.
Personally I just think he has a hard time saying bad things about people that support him. But it's a pretty big fucking problem when they're doing things like this.
Read this carefully. They are looking at the actual response to these tweets. Not their own personal feelings. The actual effects on other Twitter users.
Now the most common retort is "but its a private platform" which is true, but it also enjoys regulated protections from liability those protections should come with strings attach to them to uphold and honor the free speech rights of the public.
As to the danger, anyone that believes Trump is the source, cause, or even primary instigator of what is happening is not paying attention to reality or the last 20+ years or so of social unrest.
I can assure you if/when Trump is banned from all platforms and is relegated to the dust bins of society to fundamental cultural problems that are the root of the unrest will still be there
Trump is a symptom, Avatar, a Symbol of the problem for sure, Trump can be a lightening rod I will not deny that either. However removing one lightening rod will not make the lightening disappear it will just find another path.
I do not have a solution to those cultural problems either, and that is even more worrisome than Twitter censoring people, which honestly I wish they would have done in 2016 as twitter would be a less relevant platform today which is why they did not in 2016 they need Trump just as much as Trump needed them
i do know that censorship (private or public) is not the path to unity, it as never worked in history so there is no reason to believe it will work in the current year..
EDIT: ------------------ Since I have now been throttled for having incorrect opions allow me to respond to the below comment here
>> @krapp says "That's why the First Amendment only applies to Congress"
That is a very simplistic take, and I never once said anything about the 1st Amendment.
Free Speech is a natural right of human's which is protected from government infringement by the 1st amendment, but the 1st amendment does not grant or bestow this right upon us, we have simply by being alive
This is also called the Lockean understanding of Rights.
You have also conflated Free Speech and the Right os Association, another natural right everyone has. The right of association is what gives twitter the ethical foundation to ban or refuse to publish the words of anyone they choose
Which I 100% support, however the fly in the ointment is the fact that congress has given special legal liability protections to Twitter where by they will not be held liable if they choose to associate with the public at large as a platform. IMO granting these liabilities shields to twitter, twitter should also have to accept they will welcome all legal protected speech. They would also be free to choose to reject that liability shield and retain their right of association.
The free speech rights of the public include the right not to be compelled to hear, host or publish speech against one's will. That's why the First Amendment only applies to Congress - if it also applied to the public, it would limit their freedom of speech.
Free Speech is a natural right of human's which is protected from government infringement by the 1st amendment, but the 1st amendment does not grant or bestow this right upon us, we have simply by being alive
This is also called the Lockean understanding of Rights.
You have also conflated Free Speech and the Right os Association, another natural right everyone has. The right of association is what gives twitter the ethical foundation to ban or refuse to publish the words of anyone they choose
Which I 100% support, however the fly in the ointment is the fact that congress has given special legal liability protections to Twitter where by they will not be held liable if they choose to associate with the public at large as a platform. IMO granting these liabilities shields to twitter, twitter should also have to accept they will welcome all legal protected speech. They would also be free to choose to reject that liability shield and retain their right of association.
I am also not a big fan of the "incitement" defense, it seems that is often a moving goal post depending the the political views of the person being accuses of incitement, it is also very subjective, I am not a fan of subjectivity in policy. Policy have to be objective.
To objective incitement, i.e a direct call to violence, should be ban-able, but subjective analysis on what "he really meant" or "how people took the words" is where I start to have problems
This smells like some extremely transparent opportunism after all they‘ve earned with 45.
it is odd to me
It lead to a lot of discussion of Grover Cleveland back in the day.
I'm not sure why you felt compelled to mention "the left" in this context. Are you implying that Twitter wants to curry favor with the left? Or perhaps that if the left is happy, then it's a bad thing? I feel like there is some subtext that you might as well just spell out.
It’s a correct (late) call, but using these quotes will read to those who disagree as “we have nothing we just want to shut him down” which is unfortunate.
This reflects poorly on Twitter.
The actions of his followers this week have finally tipped the scales too far.
After the 12 hour ban, Trump's twitter account lost its special privilege too and instead of "blue tagging" his tweets they said they would just ban it next time. This was "next time" so they followed through and banned it:
> Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.[0]
I'm surprised more people aren't bringing this up. Per them this only needed to violate "Civic Integrity" which per their explanation it looks like it does.
[0] https://twitter.com/twittersafety/status/1346970430062485505
I hope there are people who feel the same way and I wonder where is the best place to get away from the rabidness. Quarantine can’t end soon enough.
We enjoy bread, circuses and the inevitable collapse of industrial civilization,
Welcome to the minority!
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
From TFA.
Subsequently, he posted relatively tame, but still rule-breaking tweets, and he got banned for it. No surprises there.
Without the important balance between left and right, it’s going to be a free for all on both sides, with each amping each other up to retreat further and further into extreme parts of their respective sides. Twitter just inserted a nuclear bomb into the already delicate fault lines between left and right.
And yeah it’s gaining a lot of members recently.
This is weak justification and anyone with a non-partisan mind, or does not suffer from such an extreme bias agaist the target of this ban should be worried about the future of online censorship.
However I am sure this will simply fall on deaf ears as Never Trump's will celebrate with out even considering the bigger picture, and Trump supports will view this just further evidence the system as rigged against Trump
The ironic thing is this will do nothing to clam the most extreme of Trump supports most of whom have already been banned from twitter anyway, if anything this is tossing gasoline on the dumpster fire
Should it be weak, on just what you are looking at? I mean, yeah. You don't have to look hard to find that this is more than "merely" plausible. Odds are ridiculously high that the tweets were more fanning of flames.
I think it's important to understand that Twitter needs to be very conservative here. All social media banned Trump, and twitter really is the last place his voice can be heard (via a famous privately-owned social media organ). Well, if Trump tweets "I'm gonna nuke Iran" tomorrow they don't want to be the place Trump announces this.
He's the POTUS !!!! He can be on more or less every media outlet on the entire planet in a few seconds if he so chose.
That is a far better argument for permanently suspending his account than what they cobbled together.
> Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.
Words are never in a vacuum. The way they are interpreted matters. And it's false to claim you can't control how people are going to interpret what you say. Especially not when you've spent years training particular subgroups to interpret things exactly the way they are.
This move is long overdue. Trump has been using this sort of language to promote stochastic violence for many years. It's not to Twitter's credit that they had to see the Capitol building overrun by insurrectionists before understanding that it's real and has been going on for years.
But the analysis of the effect of those specific tweets is accurate.
But that's not what's happening, so the same argument doesn't apply. No doctor believes they're on a a holy mission to end pregnancies. No one is looking for a leader to reinforce this viewpoint. That's very different from the reality in this situation.
Where is that happening?
And "not an easy choice" is exactly my point. Are you under the impression doctors council in favor of terminating pregnancies outside of cases where there is a health risk to the woman? I've seen a few claims of that from anti-abortion activists, but I've never seen anything resembling proof of those claims. Given how strong such proof would be in support of their argument, I would be surprised if there is any pattern of such behavior. (Yes, I'm aware they have some videos they claim are exactly this, but given that the only videos they release are highly edited, I'm rather suspicious that those edits removed a lot of important information. An unambiguous problem wouldn't need a lot of editing.)
Doctors will provide abortions to the people who choose to get them. I don't see any evidence that there are people who believe they are being instructed to have or perform abortions.
I see quite a lot of very strong evidence people are being told the election results are invalid, insurrection is necessary to right an injustice, and that there are people who believe they are being called upon to carry out that insurrection. My source? The claims the president has made repeatedly and the insurrection attempt on Wednesday.
These things are different. One is very obvious to everyone with their eyes open. The other one still lacks evidence. When the important part of the situation is the link between an action and its effect on others, the ease in observing that connection is the context.
So no. The same argument doesn't work. The pattern of facts is quite different.
I sold my TWTR shares and advise others to do the same.
Echo, meet chamber.
I'd rather see folks talking even if they don't agree than not talking at all. When you're talking you're not fighting.
I realize lots of other people are breaking them also, but that's not an excuse to do it yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Modern_use_in_c...
It is the standard way of writing the century in many European countries/languages.