> nuance

Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence.

Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way.

I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.

There’s no overall rule that says people fighting governments is always good. Trump is trying to overturn democracy and create a bad government. The difference is that in one case the people are rising up against their dictator, and the other is a multimillionaire who is angry he lost.

I understand that this is the difference but how can you possibly live with the idea that these platforms are ok to incite revolution/insurrection in only specific circumstances?

What’s the criteria?

If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms.

Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook)

I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.

This is kind of the problem: Twitter will invite a revolution whether your country needs it or not.