At the other end of the spectrum, it seems that people who go online and rant about how someone should shoot the President or cut a judge's brake lines or whatever are the least likely to follow through. They aren't exactly the movers and shakers of civilization, more likely just thoughtless kids or random loudmouths. Wasting law enforcement time on nonspecific threats is the sort of thing a government that has too much power tends to do.

Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it?

I don't see what scale has to do with it.

I also don't see how an absolute statement like "The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed." can be believed. It only takes one counter example.

This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on online commentary, something that could absolutely have flagged the Christchurch massacre.

Yes. The point being, he wrote a manifesto, not a vaguely-ominous sounding tweet.

Seems you know this background and motivation well. Since it perfectly fits the definition of terrorism, why won't you call him a terrorist? Is it because he isn't brown?

I chose "murderer" as a stronger word than "shooter". I didn't say anything about "brown people". I'm not sorry and you are out of line.