If you believe that Justice means something, then there is a difference between Just violence and Unjust violence. Even a single state can produce both Just violence (locking up criminals or criminal instigators) and Unjust violence (extra-judicial killings or forced sterilization).

I agree, but by allowing some calls to violence and not others, Twitter is placing itself as a judge of what violence is justifiable and what isn't.

This is basically what politics is - deciding how to fairly apply violence. So Twitter is taking a political stance by only removing some calls. And an especially strong stance if they are going to start judging nation states.

Yes, Twitter is obviously doing that.

Personally, I find that it would be far more fair for Twitter and FB to allow these accounts but to add editorial notes to their tweets/posts explaining that the company believes strongly that these are falsehoods, or something similar. Even the current "This claim about election fraud is disputed" seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

Yeah, I would rather Twitter outright ban accounts then just randomly remove tweets.

I do think a label is the best solution, especially for accounts that represent a real person or entitity and aren't anonymous.

The difference between

- an illegal mob ransacking Congress in an attempt to overthrow an election, and

- a constitutional arrest of a criminal president (e.g. by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, or by the FBI under Mike Pence’s and the Cabinet’s order via the 25th Amendment)

should not need an explanation.

I never mentioned the Capitol protest? I'm talking about this tweet by China. This is state sanctioned violence (by China) and so is arresting someone.

Twitter is clearly drawing a line somewhere about what violence is okay, and what violence isn't, and it's not particularly clear where it is and if there is any bias.

I was referring to your comment about arresting Trump - Twitter’s line is clearly about “legal” state violence. This wouldn’t be murder or forced sterilization or a coup d’etat. But it could be a legal (or even legally murky) military action, and certainly the arrest of someone like President Trump, who is subject to many good-faith allegations of serious violent crimes, and should be arrested to face trial for them.

It is worth noting that “state-sanctioned” violence does not always mean legally-sanctioned violence, since state actions can easily be criminal, or at least lawless.

- The Capitol Hill mob was illegal violence, albeit state-sanctioned (by endorsement of the president)

- Arresting the president (either under Congressional authority or the 25th amendment) would be legal state-sanctioned violence

- Although nominal Chinese law is somewhat authoritarian with regard to ethnic minorities and Muslims, the reason the Xi regime is so desperate to cover up and propagandize the concentration camps is that they are illegal under Chinese and international law

In what way was the Capitol mob “state sanctioned”? The president has a constitutionally defined role and ordering angry mobs to sack government buildings is not part of it (and in any case he didn’t explicitly tell them to do it)

Why are you categorizing arrests of individuals that broke the law as violence?

It is violence whether they broke the law or not. We have as a society mostly deemed it to be acceptable violence. It doesn't mean that it's not violence though.

You're really saying that forcing someone to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffing them, and dragging them to jail where they'll be locked up and can't leave isn't violence?

You're changing the goal posts to redefine "arrests." To arrest someone is to enforce the law. You can be peaceably arrested, unless you resist arrest, which is further violating the criminal code.

A peaceful arrest is still done under the threat of violence though and is still violent. By this logic if I go to a bank with a gun and say, "give me all your money" and they comply without a fight it's not violent?

Edit: plus my first comment described a peaceful arrest, not someone resisting.