> clear ties to inciting violent riots

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544

Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.

Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?

No. I'm saying that leftwing violence is distributed. Rightwing is centralized. The radical left is smart. There's no head antifa leader. Doesn't mean antifa is any less dangerous, I might argue more dangerous because there's no head to the hydra.

Are you making the argument that there are coordinated, yet distributed, Antifa cells spread across America that pose a greater or equal threat then:

1) the mob that stormed the capitol building with threats to kill and kidnap US congressmen, senators, and the VP?

2) the several dozen Michigan militia members currently indicted for attempting to kidnap the governor of Michigan

3) the texas commuters who attempted to steer the Biden/Harris campaign bus off the highway

Every large platform selectively enforces rules. The squeakiest wheels get the grease. The Twitter firehose is a notoriously large amount of data; difficult for computers to parse, and impossible for a human to review unless brought to their attention. I don't think it's fair to automatically attribute it to malice.

Also, not sure I'm following what that link is supposed to demonstrate. Twitter has no power to censor cable news networks.

When tens of millions of people protest something, it could just be because they have a legitimate grievance.

That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.

And Twitter should act as an arbiter for such distinction?

They decided to.

What you've linked to is a splicing of several segments of video which attempts to link together events, groups, places people and organizations most of which are not actually linked together. For example:

* A person says "looting", and in a following or preceding segment another person, on another channel at another time says "Antifa".

* An image of cars on fire in the background, and segments by some anchors or pundits saying that protests are important, or should not be polite.

So, while I'm no fan on MSNBC, CNN etc., and think they're being rather hypocritical with their treatment of the confirmation protesters - that clip is just under-handed smearing by its author and by you.

I updated my post to be more accurate about the extent of Twitter's actions regarding bans. Also, to be fair, conservatives are associated with the conspiracy theories and the Capitol riots, so it makes sense they would be targeted. I agree it is a shame if there are some conservatives who are not promoting conspiracy theories that have been silenced.

Yes, conservatives have been the only group associated with riots this year. Makes total sense why they are the only ones targeted.

Double standards are bad. Principles should matter more than your biases.

I'm trying to make the case in my comment above that I don't believe the situations are equivalent and thus there is no double standard. (You can of course disagree with this and I'd be interested in your argument)

There is one standard for leaders who promote documented conspiracy theories and another for blocking an entire country's access to social media in an effort to alter the outcome of an election.

The leaders who tirelessly promoted Russian influence conspiracy theory and supported violent riots last year are somehow not blocked.

Feel compelled to provide context on a double-standard, here are just a few counter examples of leaders in US politics who have, with their speech, “promoted conspiracy theories” and “incited violence” with no measures taken to make them accountable for their words. While no person, country or company is perfect... maybe Uganda witnessed this and decided to take a more formal position, like BigTech decided:

- Stacey Abrams claimed election fraud and was never censored on social media.

- "protesters should not let up," - "This is a movement, I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day," she said. "And everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not." - Vice-president elect Kamala Harris

- "there needs to be unrest in the streets." - - "You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." - Rep. Ayanna Pressley

- "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." - "You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet," - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," - Rep. Maxine Waters

Probably more.. something to consider.

“You Americans are gullible. We’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands”. — Nikita Kruschev