You might argue that forms of fact-checking or moderation of controversial content constituted censorship, but you cannot believe that that equates to such explicit silencing of political opponents.

When did they censor the republicans?

Did you forget that Meta chose to shut down the account of a democratically-elected sitting Republican president?

Or is that (and other scandals eg the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story) a distant and obscure memory?

They cited a reason for that didn't they? what was it now?

No the same case. Donald Trump's account was banned due to his role in inciting an insurrection but you could still find republican content posted by other users with hashtags. I'd expect the same treatement if a democratic leader tried to incite a violent mob to assault the capitol.

When the Capitol riot happened, Trump was tweeting to demand the protesters act peacefully and within the law.

If Trump was truly an insurrectionist, then that’s a very strange way to incite insurrection.

My "favorite" bit of misinformation about the Capitol riot (out of so, so many) is about Donald Trump Jr. For many, many months prosecutors and the media talked about him as being an unindicted co-conspirator, and how that that Nixonesque adjective would/should surely be adjusted any day now. Then ... it turns out that Jr. repeatedly begged his father (via messages to Mark Meadows) to do whatever he could to stop the rioting.

and only once donald realized his insurrection attempt failed did he listen to his son

we know, it was all detailed in the Jan 6th report - confirming trump's anti-American attempt at a coup. He should be in jail.

You should re-read his tweets from January 6th[0]. He didn’t tweet about peace until hours after things started, (he was gleefully watching it unfold on TV[1], remember), and when he did, it was a half hearted one line sentence to go home.

And three of his tweets were deleted by Twitter, including this gem from late in the day:

“Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

This doesn’t read like someone who was remorseful about the actions that happened that day on his watch.

0: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-january-6-2...

1: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-fi...

To add to your (excellent) points, he only started tweeting about peace once it was obvious the plan (interrupting the certification to use "alternate slates") had failed. Of course he would share a "call for peace" at that point. Everyone with half a mind would. It didn't cost him anything (beyond his ego), and it has allowed his followers to do exactly what GP is doing - leaving out all the incriminating information.

Ironically the downvotes of my (factual) post help illustrate the problem we have with online discourse in general - not just meta.

People upvote and downvote based on tribal instincts, not based on a sincere reflection of truth.

Or maybe they think your post is not of value? Lol

For the last several years, they censored the Hunter Biden laptop story (before an election, at that!), the claim that COVID was possibly a lab leak, and other "uncouth" topics that turned out to be reasonable after all. And the positions censored were far more likely to be associated with Republicans than they were for Democrats.

Republicans on FaceBook in particular joked about being in FaceBook jail heavily -- observing "shadow bans", outright bans, and other ways they couldn't communicate with their fans and friends.

Indeed, when Twitter was bought out and the censorship was removed, many of these people were amazed at how much interaction they got afterward -- it was night and day. And we now know from the "Twitter Files" that the Government was behind these efforts all along, so it's not just a "company has the right to moderate content" issue, it's a "government is violating the 1st Amendment" issue.

Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter. They didn't seem to have a problem with this. It's interesting how the brainwashing works: they always find a reason for whatever they do. "Empathy", "sympathy", "compassion" for whatever evil they do. "We are protecting innocent people from the Dangerous Thoughts".

When other groups do it to them, then they cry in the media in which they control.

The solution is simple: we should not censor free speech. IT WILL be turned against you. This should be a principled position, not one that depends on whether you like one party or another party...

Twitter and Facebook locked Trump's account because he committed policy violations while actively inciting an insurrection after having lost the presidential election. Regardless of the actions of private companies, I also believe that inciting violent treason is not covered under the First Amendment.

I'm not sure what similar argument can be made about the #Democrat hashtag, though. As far as I know, nothing actually happened that would warrant any restrictions on the hashtag.

> Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter

For misinformation and inciting violence. Not because of his politics.

The above is a proven factual statement that has been downvoted due to tribal politics.

Very sad to see, and indicative of the poor state of political discourse.

If Democrats can incite violence and post information with impunity, yet Republicans get fact-checked out the wazoo (by Democrats, no less!) ... it's very hard for us to take the claim that this wasn't "because of his politics".

I didn't agree with the Trump ban and a lot of other "content moderation" (which affected the left wing too).

But in the case of Trump he was banned due to the incitement of violence/revolt in the Capitol Hill incident and the attempts to overturn election results.

Look at Clinton and Pelosi’s tweets when Trump won the first term. They also challenged the result and claimed it was a manipulated election.

May 16th 2017 Nancy Pelosi tweeted to her massive following “ Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”

Does that mean she was removed from social media for “inciting revolt”? No, of course not.

Trump’s tweets on the day of the Capitol riot were to demand people behave peacefully and respect the rule of law.

Yet he was banned without appeal.

Consider that the differing results in each situation led to different actions taken.

In only one case was there an insurrection supported (as evidenced by pardons) by the tweeter.

First off, it's now clear from the evidence that the "insurrection" was the FBI working hard to entrap all the people they could, after everything was done to limit security on the day of the protest.

Secondly, the riots in Washington DC on Trump's first inauguration are rather pretty, the way the fires of businesses glowed in the night.

I'm really tired of pretending that somehow the Republicans are the "uncivil" ones, while the Democrats are perfectly innocent, and wouldn't harm a fly.

Pelosi didn't question the election results or call for their overturning. It was about the claims about foreign influence, which was later used to build the narrative for impeachment.