People seem intent on reliving the mistakes of the twentieth century. At this point, it’s become so blatant, I’m starting to doubt that it’s just out of ignorance.

There is a saying that democracy has to reconfirm itself each generation.

Both the left and the right hate democracy now. On college campuses, the idea gets increasingly popular that free speech is a harmful concept. This is not just an empty phrase. This generation is graduating and will one day hold the keys to power. Let alone the dystopian gang ruled crime infested places that they built during the BLM riots. On the right side of the political spectrum, you have the Capitol trespassers, pipe bomb layers, cop killers. I'm worried.

> Another alternative reading is The Gulag Archipelago, which precisely and painfully lays out the consequences of what happens when a small group of people decide which ideas are okay to discuss or believe.

Honest question: when was this ever not the case for mass media?

He's the President of the United States. He's free to speak to every media outlet in the world every day in the Press Room if he wants. He just chooses not to as that would make him accountable and it's easier to rant on Twitter instead of doing his job. The Gulag Archipelago is as much about the unchallenged silencing of free media outlets, opposition parties and growth of tyranny ("Yes communists have some fringe ideas but they won't really be that bad when they come to power"). FB, Twitter, YT have been banning all sorts of groups over the years, in Palestine for example - it's just more people are noticing it now.

Jesus, enough with the Gulag Archipelago references.

Donald Trump was banned from Twitter. “Conservatives” were not. You are still free to engage in all manner of conservative speech on Twitter that does not call for violence against your ideological opponents.

Did he really call for violence against his ideological opponents?

I don't follow twitter, but it would be good to have some evidence.

It's not so much that he has intentionally incited violence - I don't actually think that's the case. It's that he's been engaging in political brinkmanship for some time now, and in the process become a spiritual leader to an extremist faction which caused violence.

To allow him to continue to engage in that same brinkmanship after violence has already occurred is allowing him to continue inciting violence, unintentional as it may be.

He was banned from everything from Shopify to Spotify. This was a weaponised, coordinated deplatforming. People have been banned on Twitter before, and in fact other state leaders tweet significantly worse: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?s...

This is about a small group of people coming together whilst collectively possessing significant power on the fabric of society and choosing to erase an individual.

What do you suppose that example proves? If the account continues to post shit like that it should be banned too.

It’s a large group of people. A large group of people all made the business decision that it’s better not to associate with Parler/Trump. That’s not coordinated deplatforming, that’s just a society making a decision.