3 ms·

Sorry, I'm really not seeing the jump to "treason" here. I also think the author has a personal vendetta against Twitter based on the final sentence of the post

Sorry, I'm really not seeing the jump to "treason" here. I also think the author has a personal vendetta against Twitter based on the final sentence of the post, but regardless - they acknowledge that declaration of war is a congressional power, and that contempt of Congress is a possibility - but somehow this means that removal of a post from a member of the executive branch is treason? Would the New York Times refusing to run a story about how war was declared be treason? What about CSPAN cutting away the broadcast in the middle of a war announcement? I don't think so, in either case, and I don't think it's the case for Twitter either - because them not carrying the information doesn't change the material facts of the declaration. They're not interfering in an official congressional process in any capacity, because they're not part of an official congressional process.

caiocaiocaio 7y ago
You and me have an extremely different definition of personal vendetta!
- akersten 7y ago
  That's fair, "vendetta" is too strong of a word. "Personal bias" is better-suited. It's just hard to read a post calling them "internet vampires" and still assume a neutral author.
  - t0mbstone 7y ago
    But Twitter has objectively proven themselves to be "celebrity vampires" by selectively applying different sets of rules to celebrities than to common people. For example, it is against Twitter's official rules (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules) for a user to use their platform to say hateful or racist things, and they regularly ban people for violating those conditions, but they they regularly allow famous people (like the President of the USA) to get away with violating many of those rules. Why does Twitter let Trump (and many other famous people) get away with breaking the rules? Because Twitter directly benefits from the viewers and the outrage. Acknowledging that fact (and yes, it is a provable fact) hardly means someone has a personal vendetta against Twitter.
    - manicdee 7y ago
      It’s especially common for Twitter, upon receiving complaints from a POC about racial harassment, to ban the victim.
mbillie1 7y ago
> They're not interfering in an official congressional process in any capacity, because they're not part of an official congressional process. This is the crux of it I'd say.

caiocaiocaio 7y ago

You and me have an extremely different definition of personal vendetta!

akersten 7y ago
That's fair, "vendetta" is too strong of a word. "Personal bias" is better-suited. It's just hard to read a post calling them "internet vampires" and still assume a neutral author.
- t0mbstone 7y ago
  But Twitter has objectively proven themselves to be "celebrity vampires" by selectively applying different sets of rules to celebrities than to common people. For example, it is against Twitter's official rules (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules) for a user to use their platform to say hateful or racist things, and they regularly ban people for violating those conditions, but they they regularly allow famous people (like the President of the USA) to get away with violating many of those rules. Why does Twitter let Trump (and many other famous people) get away with breaking the rules? Because Twitter directly benefits from the viewers and the outrage. Acknowledging that fact (and yes, it is a provable fact) hardly means someone has a personal vendetta against Twitter.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    It’s especially common for Twitter, upon receiving complaints from a POC about racial harassment, to ban the victim.

mbillie1 7y ago

> They're not interfering in an official congressional process in any capacity, because they're not part of an official congressional process. This is the crux of it I'd say.