Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and people here are crying wolf
As far as facts go, here's what's established: Trump was deplatformed for political speech for 2 years
Leftist cheer on the politically-motivated censorship of the other side, and then when Dem account is banned 1 hour and everyone is crying their eyes out
The audacity
Trump received a 12 hour temporary ban for that video, because he lied that the election was stolen from him and he praised the rioters.
Trump was banned for more Tweets that Twitter judged “likely to incite more violence” like January 6th, particularly because plans for more violent attacks had begun proliferating, including more attacks on the US Capitol and state capitols on January 17.
> he was never convicted of anything
Private platforms don’t require a criminal conviction, and anyway his SCOTUS appointees invented a brand new Presidential Immunity doctrine expressly to protect him.
> so your accusation has no legal basis
“Not convicted” != “no legal basis”
> As far as facts go, here's what's established: Trump was deplatformed for political speech for 2 years
Nope, Trump was deplatformed for inciting political violence.
> Leftist cheer on the politically-motivated censorship of the other side, and then when Dem account is banned 1 hour and everyone is crying their eyes out
You would have a point if you can point to a case of leftists complaining that their candidate was deplatformed for trying to overthrow the government, but obviously that hasn’t happened so you have to pretend that attempting to overthrow the government is comparable to run-of-the-mill campaigning.
I also don’t know that I would throw stones about “crying” if my side has an annual meltdown about the decorations on Starbucks cups :)
> Trump was banned for more Tweets that Twitter judged
We were discussing Meta, why are we moving the goalpost?
> Private platforms [can do whatever they want]
That applies to Trump as much as it applies here.
> “Not convicted” != “no legal basis”
Lol, have you even heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? How about "defamation"?
So much artificial intelligence, yet we struggle with basic concepts.
> Trump was deplatformed for [commenter's opinion]
Yeah, that's your opinion.
> if you can point to a case of leftists complaining that their candidate was deplatformed for [commenter's opinion]
Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. Plus, you're trying to move the goalpost again.
> annual meltdown about the decorations on Starbucks cups
That's actually funny haha
> my side
That's were we have the real problem. "My side" vs. "your side". "I'm morally superior because [commenter's opinion]".
I literally argue that censorship is bad for everyone and people are ready to wage WW3 because of "sides".
Is the idea that I'm "moving the goalposts" by acknowledging that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to private platforms' moderation policies? Or what are you specifically objecting to here?
> We were discussing Meta, why are we moving the goalpost?
Were we? By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension, because your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension which was for violating its content policies for promoting violence. Regardless of which platform you're talking about, you still have to demonstrate that promoting violence and trying to overthrow the government are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat.
> Lol, have you even heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?
Yes, Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced. "innocent until proven guilty" does not protect Trump from people observing that he committed crimes.
> How about "defamation"?
Lol are you arguing that I'm committing "defamation" by criticizing the president for committing crimes when he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law? Firstly, by your own logic, you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty in a court of law. Secondly, in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_ which is why the famously litigious DJT won't sue anyone for these claims.
> Yeah, that's your opinion.
The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts. Maybe you could argue that the platforms are lying to us about their true intentions, but you haven't presented any evidence to support your claims that he wasn't, in fact, suspended for stoking a violent insurrection or lying about election results but rather was suspended for calling for peace.
> That's actually funny haha
Thanks, it was tough to pick just one controversy (tan suit gate, dijon gate, bike helmet gate, cheesecake factory gate, etc).
> That's were we have the real problem. "My side" vs. "your side". "I'm morally superior because [commenter's opinion]".
My man, I didn't start the right vs left stuff, I was pointing out that it's a particularly bad idea to engage in that sort of partisanship when your party is so much more guilty of the criticisms you're levying at "leftists".
> what are you specifically objecting to here?
I pointed out in my previous comment 2 specific sentences where you're moving the goalpost, no point repeating
> By context I thought you were talking about his Twitter suspension
I don't know where you'd get that idea, the thread started as a conversation about Meta banning a Dem account, we're discussing about Meta
> your comments were clearly incorrect as pertaining to his Meta suspension
You're clearly wrong, here's what Wikipedia says: "Trump posted a short video. Facebook removed it and blocked Trump's ability to post new content to both platforms.[...] The next day, Facebook said the block would remain" [1]; Then Wikipedia links to the exact video I was talking about in my previous comment.
> you still have to demonstrate that [commenters emotional opinion] are comparable to campaigning for a senate seat
No, I don't. You're moving the goalpost again by trying to switch what we are discussing here. I'm not debating with your feelings Trump's actions. We were discussing political censorship, specifically by Meta.
> Trump should stand trial for his crimes before he's sentenced
That's your emotional opinion again
> you aren't allowed to criticize me for defamation until I've been found guilty
You're not making any sense now, we are literally debating with each other; Goes to show how little you understand those concepts
> in the United States, it's only defamation if it's _provably untrue_
That's incorrect actually. Just for the sake of argument, in case of defamation, the burden of proof about the truth value of the statement is on the person that published the statement. If someone calls me a murderer, it's not my burden to prove I'm not a murderer (as a negative can't be proven), it's their burden to prove the truth of what they wrote about me.
> The platforms themselves made public statements as to why they suspended his accounts.
Then all those platforms (including Meta) paid hefty settlements to Trump and reinstated his accounts. So, clearly, all of them are regretting their actions. You keep insisting about nonsense that has no factual basis.
> your party is so much more guilty
Of course, I know, the other party is always always much much more guilty, even when you have 0 facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Donald_Tru...