33 ms·
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked suc
by ve55 6y ago
This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past.
It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose to specifically quote "American Patriots", as if that somehow contributes to the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps they have a strategic reason for going about this how they did, but I think it will have some negative 2nd/3rd order effects. that they haven't yet realized.
I imagine we are still only in the early days of the conflicts that are to come in this sphere (and I'd include just about every company and political faction in them, unfortunately).
(Also because apparently I have to state this explicitly in every comment related to Trump: I do not support Trump, his supporters, the recent events that occurred at the capitol, etc etc)
- handmodel 6y agoI think the logic isn't that hard. Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally
- notyourwork 6y agoI think its easier to ban him based on political justification than it would be to ban in in a post-presidency. I also think they are less than interested in enduring his antics as a former president considering how much he abuses the court system to get his way.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alex_young 6y agoIt's really important realize this distinction. Imagine a newspaper printing a letter to the editor from a person whose words have previously incited a riot. I find it surprising that they enabled the account again at all after the 6th.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wp381640 6y agoIn the terrorism of the 60s through to the 90s a common demand in hostage situations was to have a letter read out in the media. The PFLP would do it, the Red Army Brigades, even the Unabomber demanded his manifesto be printed They needed to take hostages to get published because most media wouldn't air their messaging because of their support of violence In the modern age they'd all have free platforms and likely amplification.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marshmellman 6y agoIf they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving individuals to violence.
- phs318u 6y agoYou also can't rule out that if they had a platform, they'd use it to incite others to resort to violence on their behalf. For example, the Unabomber's manifesto expresses his belief that violence was necessary to provoke revolution against the technological society. The Unabomber's bombings were the "pre-violence" required to get his ideas out there, of which of which a violent revolution was one.
- marshmellman 6y agoAgreed. It doesn’t seem obvious to me whether or not censoring results in less violence in the parent’s examples. Maybe it is obvious to those more well read on them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- skindoe 6y agoHe literally told people to stay peaceful...
- ardy42 6y ago> He literally told people to stay peaceful... It's not like that's all he said...
- ardy42 6y ago>> He literally told people to stay peaceful... > It's not like that's all he said... Update: it sounds like Trump is now regrets telling people to stay peaceful: https://nyti.ms/3ot6MhR https://nyti.ms/3ot6MhR: > At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before [emphasis mine].
- CamperBob2 6y agoYeah, and so did Charles Manson, who also never laid a hand on anyone.
- Kim_Bruning 6y agoYes, in the tweets that stayed up. This a big reason why I dislike censorship. It distorts everything, and removes evidence.
- mbesto 6y agoWhich is why interpretation of speech requires context. Yelling "fire" in an open field vs a packed cinema are obviously are easy to interpret. There's a whole bunch of grey area in the middle.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoAnd that grey area is admittedly harder to give context to when the medium for it is text....but since he's the president and he's been physically SAYING falsehoods that lead to this situation, he should have been banned sooner.
- disgrunt 6y agoSo any politician that states a falsehood on Twitter should be banned? Or just U.S. presidents?
- kennywinker 6y agoThe amount of harm caused by a lie is proportional to the size of the audience who hears it
- thefucnjosh 6y agoAs well as the authority of the person spreading it. The fact that we've decided the President is above libel, slander, and felony charges is a new thing. Thank god people stopped this nonsense when he started advocating terrorism. Equality under the law, implies MORE scrutiny for the powerful. Unfortunately, up until this point we have normalized the opposite.
- ajmurmann 6y agoIt seems like most societies have some kind of a reflex towards monarchy. We elect our leaders but still treat them in many ways like monarchs who need to be revered rather than like people we hired to do a job for us.
- mnklo 6y agoI think it's simpler than this. There will likely be an inquiry, and "enablers" may be held to account. This potentially includes social media platforms such as Twitter.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoAs they should be, equality under the law should include the President. And the things he said were not protected speech.
- alsetmusic 6y agoThey were protected speech, even if lies.
- ytpete 6y agoI thought the term "protected speech" usually means speech that is protected from government censorship by the 1st Amendment. But I'm not sure that has any bearing in this context since government censorship isn't involved here.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoSedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH
- throwawaysea 6y agoIn the US, they are actually protected speech unless relating to an imminent threat. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel#Seditious_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel#Seditious_spee...
- ytpete 6y agoJust to clarify (belatedly), my point was that whether or not it's protected speech doesn't matter when we're discussing Twitter - because Twitter isn't beholden to the 1st Amendment. They are free to block speech even if it is "protected."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dheera 6y agoI reckon it also has a lot to do with ad revenue. Trump is the ONLY reason I'm on Twitter. There is literally no other benefit I gain from being on Twitter. Also, people only ever respond to me if I tweet against Trump's policies. If I say anything about science or tech or humanity or art or say some interesting ideas, nobody listens to me. Nobody retweets me. Nobody follows me. It's like talking to a wall. His term is over, and my reason to be on Twitter is over. So from Twitter's standpoint they don't have much to lose by doing the right thing and banning him with only a little more than a week left. If they had banned him 2 years ago they'd have lost 2 years of my ad revenue.
- egypturnash 6y agoThis is a compelling argument for social media being something funded by the government as a public good, rather than run for profit.
- lostlogin 6y agoIt would make the implementation of back doors and moderation/suppression of speech much easier, so that’s a plus too. Full sarcasm of course, but if those aspects could be managed, I’d be all in.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoPeople are so afraid of such silly things sometimes, like those people afraid of a U.S. government run twitter. Who has more freedom to express their opinions a normal person at work whose boss can fire them for any reason, or a government worker who has legal guarantees for their speech? Who is less likely to start a war by banning a dangerous world leader from a platform, Twitter, or an independent non-profit entity run by the state.
- nightski 6y agoYou can leave Twitter with a few clicks. It's a lot harder to leave your country.
- OCASM 6y agoIf Twitter was being fair, many democrats would be banned too since they also said things to whip up mobs this past year with far worse consequences. Some are still ongoing (Portland).
- garyrichardson 6y agoAdditionally I believe wholesale banning the leader of a country from a platform like twitter is not black or white. Their persona is different and requires different treatment than any other given account. I suspect two factors went into the calculus this time: he has proved himself desperately dangerous AND he's got less than 2 weeks left in his term.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoI don't disagree. But sedition isn't protected speech. So if they didn't ban him they're opening themselves up for lawsuits. In no country on earth is it legal for anyone to publicly advocate the overthrow of their government. And there's already decisions on the books proving this, as well as the legal precedent of cold-war anti-communism laws.
- spaginal 6y agoPoint out the sedition.
- kmos17 6y agolisten to his speech inciting his followers to go to the capitol. You can decide if it’s sedition or not, but the end result is undeniably an insurrection, and his words are what directly invited them to do this.
- ajmurmann 6y agoHe has been laying the ground work for this since at least last summer to hedge against an election loss. He has been sitting baseless accusations about mail-in ballots, solve he knew Democrats would be more likely to vote by mail because they took the pandemic seriously. What was the "stop the steal" slogan supposed to accomplish other than create the overthrowing of the legitimately elected president? If he had legal ground he wouldn't have needed a slogan, but just won his court battles.
- spaginal 6y ago
- notadev 6y agoShould there be a distinction when the bad things aren't said on Twitter itself? Ignoring the argument that what happened in DC was the culmination of Trump's incitement throughout his presidency, his order to his supporters to march to the Capitol, and claiming he would be marching with them, was _the_ direct call to action. It was given during his in-person speech in DC. Why should Twitter ban him for that? I think he was banned because Democrats took control of power and FAANG is telegraphing their compliance to those now in charge of how they're going to be regulated. They're going to over-correct, as they're starting to do with banning Michael Flynn and more will follow. Anyone on YouTube or Twitter that doesn't outright refer to the people who broke into the Capitol as terrorists or insurrectionists are getting demonitized/banned -- literally forced groupthink influenced by who is allowed to monetize their videos. People on the left are trying to extend the culpability of those who broke the law to those who voted for Trump. Implying nearly 70 million people are themselves insurrectionists. I don't think this will be good for the Internet the next time the GOP gets enough seats to pass legislation. I'd be happy knowing that's the worst of what's to come.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoIf you sympathize with people who are terrorists...you're a terrorist sympathizer. That's just how words work. That being said: "Should there be a distinction when the bad things aren't said on Twitter itself?" There shouldn't for corporations, presidents public figures etc. because they have PR teams.....however, for normal people there should be. For example Youtube recently banned the "Nelk boys" channel with the justification being this creepy authoritarian statement. "If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our ecosystem we take action to protect the community"
- lostlogin 6y ago> Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally Angry groups of protesters and resulting deaths are not a thing that started happening this week. Twitter are pathetic and have taken a stand once the writing was on the wall.
- picardythird 6y agoI’m not defending race rioting. But the context of the riots that occurred over race and the riot that occurred where a mob was two doorways away from killing members of congress is contextually important, as is the fact that the capital rioters answered to exactly one (1) person. And the fact that that one person who had the power to call in the national guard to prevent such deaths appeared uninterested in doing so.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoYeah their hesitation shouldn't have happened. They shouldn't have issued those weird corrections to his statements either, they would have had MORE credibility had they come down sooner by actually assigning someone to give the public legitimate reasons for them to ban him.
- throwaway316943 6y agoYou’re missing the point. If Twitter had a spine and was actually acting in good faith in accordance with their rules they would have issued a ban years ago. They would have done a lot of other things too so this is purely a hypothetical. They waited until after confirmation of the election and strong evidence that the powers that be are now firmly on their side before lifting a finger.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dionian 6y agoI've not seen a source for this claim
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- iconjack 6y agoBlack Lives Matter is still allowed on Twitter. Dozens of people have died from their protests and riots, not to mention hundreds of businesses vandalized, looted, and set afire. Ditto Antifa. This ban is utterly political, which, depending on how "libertarian" you are, may be fine. But the precedent is not a good one in my opinion.
- ta2987 6y agoMight as well change the name of the political party to the Whataboutican Party.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoWho has died? Can you name names?
- throwawayblmde 6y ago19+ people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...
- iconjack 6y agoI think that list is only Minneapolis. There are more.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoA number of people who are listed on the wikipedia list are unrelated or killed by right-wingers: Someone was shot during a looting spree startribune.com/man-shot-dead-outside-lake-street-pawnshop-during-unrest-is-identified/570865962/ Someone killed someone when they committed arson but that person was arrested, far from the claim that BLM got away with something. startribune.com/body-found-in-wreckage-of-mpls-pawn-shop-burned-during-george-floyd-unrest/571838681/ Random killings: Marie Kelly, killed in an apparent random shooting as she was leaving a demonstration https://apnews.com/18e8ec5a9b8e7175a128254d55df41e3 https://apnews.com/18e8ec5a9b8e7175a128254d55df41e3 None of this is terrorism. None of this is sedition. None of this is planned or organized by AOC. None of this is advocating for the overthrow of the government. None of this achieved any political goals or reform, contrary to claims made by media pundits, or weird niche youtubers like Rekieta Law or I'm sure whatever local talk radio show is on the air where you live.
- benlivengood 6y agoPerson says SARS-Cov-2 is no big deal or cured with quackmeal, causes deaths, not de-platformed. I think it's a calculated risk knowing that Biden's win was actually certified so there's now no way this can come back and bite them. I am sure in an alternate universe @PresidentForLife would have been able to tweet indefinitely. Twitter wants no skin in the game.
- roenxi 6y agoA left-wing aligned media business has just taken a serious political action against the sitting president. They didn't even wait for the dust to settle and Trump to leave office. Twitter has not had time to link tweets in the internet world to actions in the real world; there is normally a settling after this sort of event where it turns out that what actually happened was different to the first two weeks of media reporting. When everyone calms down a month after the crisis, this will be looked back on as opening a can of worms that was a horrible mistake. This protest in the Capitol is a right-wing escalation of a sustained left-wing effort to paint the 2016 election as illegitimate. The US is in trouble if this new thinking takes hold and businesses start exercising their right to discriminate politically. The country will be inoperable.
- enkid 6y agoDonald Trump was the one saying the 2016 election had massive voter fraud. He was saying it before, after, and during that election. His words in 2016 and 2017 we're much worse in spreading distrust in the electoral system than any democrat since the Civil War. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-f...
- roenxi 6y agoKamala Harris in 2020 was helping to bail out people arrested for instigating race rioters, and she turns out to be great material for a VP pick. This isn't a new low, this is accepted behaviour in US political protesting. If the Democrats hadn't spend 3 years pushing the idea that the electoral system was compromised then maybe there'd be a more credible argument that this protest was new or problematic. Certainly if the world wasn't just fresh out of the BLM protests. But honestly, standards were set and there isn't anything unusual happening here, except it is right-wingers instead of leftists. American politics has a certain symmetry to it. Which is why this escalation is troubling.
- starfallg 6y agoYes. The US electorial system is compromised. By Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression. Both proven by facts. Whereas Trump just pulled his 'electoral fraud' claims from a hat and his lawyer got laughed out of court.
- samizdis 6y agoThe seriously v literally question is fascinating. It was the basis for this recent NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/trump-capitol-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/trump-capitol-pro... And that article references the original piece in The Atlantic that, inadvertently, provided the get-out for what the NYT laments: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-m...
- Fjolsvith 6y ago>Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. >Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally This happened all last year with Antifa/BML violence. No suspensions then?
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago> Person says bad things to whip up a mob This is *extremely* subjective. Unless you specifically call for an illegal action, it's up entirely to the interpreter whether you intend illegal action. Also, to say that Trump Tweets -> People dying is a ridiculously long leap. Many policy decisions were made that resulted in deaths. For example, not having less violent means of dispersing crowds available on a day when everyone in the country knew there could be riots at the Capitol.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- darkerside 6y agoHe told people to march on the Capitol and stop the steal. If a mob boss tells his lackeys to "take care of it", he is guilty of murder when they kill him. Judgement cones into play because people are not robots, and people in authority have a responsibility to make their orders clear.
- nindalf 6y agoMob boss: no I meant for them to take him out for a spa day, not kill him! Trump is usually careful to talk like a mob boss. He never explicitly asks for things. He implies, leaving enough gap for plausible deniability. But to this mob he was very clear - come to DC on the 6th, go to the Capitol, target Republican lawmakers who were “weak”, ie, not currently stopping the steal. Fuck Trump and fuck everyone in this thread trying to pretend like the mob never got any directions from him.
- southeastern 6y agoThe classic example is Charles Manson; he didn't kill anyone but he made it happen. Trump's case is certainly a little more abstract because he's smart enough to use ambiguous language.. But it really doesn't strain the imagination to understand how the principle is similar
- wan23 6y agoNormally, the President of the United States speaks in a way that is unambiguous with regard to whether they intend people to commit an illegal action.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vvwvvwvvw 6y agoIf you understand this logic, then do you now understand why China does its censoring?
- ksk 6y agoSo Obama, Biden, Bush, et. al. should be banned too for all the completely unnecessary wars/drone strikes that killed civilians?? Or is killing civilians sometimes accepted? This move is entirely political, Twitter should just man up and accept it, instead of insulting our intelligence.
- Robotbeat 6y agoTrump was not banned for his wars/drone strikes that killed civilians (which he increased, BTW: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-afghanistan-middle-east-strikes-civilian-deaths https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-afghanistan-middle-... ). He was banned for inciting violence using Twitter's platform. I suppose if Trump ordered unlawful drone killings using Twitter, they also may have banned him for that, but Trump used Twitter to control mobs, not drones.
- ksk 6y agoI will take that link at face value, so Trump is just as bad as Obama? Great, they're both loathsome in my book. Count me in. :) >He was banned for inciting violence using Twitter's platform. He supposedly incited people with his rally speech. Besides, I don't think the mob was checking Trumps twitter feed for instructions. The violence seemed premeditated to me.
- gammarator 6y ago> When all these people were talking about their contingencies, it was always if and when Trump tells us to. The overriding message I was seeing was, "We're here to do a job, we don't know what that job is yet. When Trump said we're going to go to the Capitol, I guess our job is to go to the Capitol." But then they didn't get any further instructions, so there was a moment of, "Okay, now what? Surely this isn't why Trump called us to DC, we don't get it. This was where he was supposed to unveil the evidence, or arrest the plotters, or reveal that China is behind it." And then none of this happened. https://www.gq.com/story/man-predicted-capitol-coup-interview https://www.gq.com/story/man-predicted-capitol-coup-intervie...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. > Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally By this logic do we not also have to delete the account of everyone prominent who tweeted anything to the effect of "no justice no peace" with respect to BLM, given that several people died there as well?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lovecg 6y agoIn this case you had people with flags bearing a specific person’s name on them. Certainly muting the only person bearing that name will have a direct effect.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThe direct effect being that the bulk of the people on the other side of the isle lose the last shred of respect for these institutions, and switch to or create other sites, causing each side to become part of a permanent echo chamber with a mutually irreconcilable set of accepted facts that cause members of the different groups to come into violent disagreement whenever they encounter one another in physical reality. I thought the goal was supposed to be to do something that reduced the probability of violent conflict?
- lovecg 6y agoYou’re underestimating the value of immediate, global, and easily accessible coordination. Trump can try to build his own Twitter but it’s nowhere near the trivial proposition you’re making it out to be. Without this coordination mechanism the mob becomes headless and decentralized.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThe hardest part about creating your own Twitter is convincing enough people to switch at once to create a critical mass. Transferring the sitting President of the United States and several other prominent members of his party at the same time in a very public way is exactly how you induce that to happen. That Parler thing was temporarily offline under the load of all the new users. That's not the problem you have when you're having the actual problem of convincing enough people to switch.
- NE2z2T9qi 6y agoDid you actually read the Twitter blog post explaining the ban? They claim Trump Tweeting that he will not attend the Biden inauguration is “an incitement to violence”. That’s delusional.
- dguaraglia 6y agoYep, as ‘delusional’ as all the warnings from people who said Trump and his group of psychopaths were going to end up causing a violent attack on democracy... that clearly was an overblown concern, right?
- throwaway316943 6y agoNow I get it, they’re trying to equate the Capitol Hill thing to a revolution. That’s funny, let’s see how far that gets. My bet’s on it falling flat in a few weeks like everything else.
- NE2z2T9qi 6y agoYou mean the violent attackers of democracy who stayed inside the velvet ropes and took selfies? https://youtu.be/y9WPuA6EUaw https://youtu.be/y9WPuA6EUaw Seems like there is a comically biased double standard when describing protests and riots. You keep pouring gasoline on a fire and then keep complaining that it won’t go out. You think impeaching him again and banning him on multiple platforms is going to de-escalate the situation? You know it will do the exact opposite. The Democrats and media companies want to poke and poke and poke until they provoke a reaction. You're delusional if you think you can keep insulting the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump without destabilizing the country. But your brains are so broken by Trump that you can't help yourselves and you're destroying the country because of it. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020, but I understand the rage Trump supporters are probably feeling. And I know who is primarily responsible: it's the same contemptuous out of touch elites that gave us Trump in the first place.
- Kim_Bruning 6y agoSome of the protest videos show peaceful conduct like this one. Others are extremely unpleasant to watch (NSFL). I have no doubt that if some of the more radical elements in the crowd had actually gotten hold of someone, things would have gotten a lot more serious. Fortunately that didn't happen, so thank goodness for that.
- neilsense 6y agoThis was happening during BLM endlessly last summer. Verified profiles calling for this kind of action, saying looting is part of the struggle and the right thing to do, etc, etc. Weirdly Twitter didn't seem to wake up when that was happening.
- hn_asker 6y agolooting isn't the same as storming the capitol.
- jmull 6y agoHe also tweeted praise for the insurrectionist and justifications for the insurrection during the attack. Any idea that he hadn’t realized the effect his words would have and had learned his lesson go firmly out the window. (If there were any remaining doubts before that... did anyone believe he didn’t know what he was doing?)
- smaryjerry 6y agoThe tweet that got him banned literally said go home in love and peace. The perception of him as an adversary and that everything he says has some hidden meaning is the only thing getting him banned by tech companies. This entire blog is trying to out words in his mouth as well.
- 99_00 6y agoWhat bad thing did he say to incite the mob?
- dannyw 6y agoOf course, it’s unreasonable to act upon what someone did X years ago.
- xref 6y agoSarcasm doesn’t work too well in a text medium, but if taken at face value Simon Wiesenthal would disagree with you
- gyc 6y agoSure. He's violated twitter's rules numerous times. This is as good of a time as any to actually enforce their rules.
- lightgreen 6y agoTwitter rules are so broad and states so vaguely, that half of the Twitter users technically violated them numerous time, and Twitter applies these rules selectively.
- setpatchaddress 6y agoYou are being incredibly naive to think that the people in question are capable of changing their minds on this particular topic at this particular time.
- bargl 6y agoI know Trump supporters, and even they (the ones I know) don't justify his tweets. If Twitter had used numerous previous tweets, I could personally go and argue with those supporters and feel like I was making headway. I don't argue with them to change their mind, I argue with them for the crowd of 5-6 people listening who are on the fence. All of them were just pushed off that fence.
- Aeolun 6y ago> All of them were just pushed off that fence. If they were pushed off the fence by this, they would have never landed on the other side of the fence in any case.
- at_ 6y agoA bit of a grim point, but the timing is also right in that the majority of staff are currently WFH, removing much of the potential for any violent protest/retaliation at their offices. Maybe being naive but I wonder how much this has been a consideration in the past.
- mrlala 6y agoI mean, they were going to ban him on January 20, 2021 at 12pm no matter what. The last few days just escalated the timeframe.
- busymom0 6y agoI have yet to see a single place where he condoned violence. And everyone was totally okay with Dems storming the Senate 2 years ago during the Kavanaugh hearings. Twitter allowed all the Antifa accounts to stay on their site. Even the Iranian ruler who calls for assassination is allowed.
- tshaddox 6y agoYou don't have to say "I hereby incite you all to commit violence" to be found guilty of inciting violence.
- busymom0 6y ago“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard!” - Donald J. Trump (January 6, 2021) Anti-Kavanaugh protestors did the exact same thing 2 years ago. Maxine Watters, AOC, Ayyana Presley all did the same. Madonna literally said she would blow up the White House. Double standards + cognitive dissonance.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y ago> to be found guilty You imply there was some kind of due process, which there wasn't. Perhaps it is fully within Twitter's legal rights as a private entity. That's not the issue. It's the practical implications that are terrifying. The power of censorship and influence Big Tech yields without any legal oversight is absolutely horrifying.
- unethical_ban 6y agoThe practical implications of someone running their own blog are terrifying! I mean, it's always good to have these thought exercises, but I think you're panicking a bit about the sky falling if the thought of a billionaire former president being banned from a microblog is what your mind is worried about in the current moment.
- nOObie1 6y agoFrom a business perspective they are only strengthening their opposition by deplatforming people and relinquishing the power to censor more egregious tweets.
- yanderekko 6y ago>It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. It's clear that people are trying to make this into a cultural moment where you either distance from / renounce Trump (which is almost costless given the immanency of his term's end) or you're treated as an unrepentant enemy of civil society. We're seeing pro-Trump hubs being systematically purged in various ways from a variety of platforms right now, and the symbolic value of moves like this is what's paramount.
- rootusrootus 6y agoIt may be that there is in fact a line that you can cross where the general public becomes significantly less apathetic.
- mikro2nd 6y agoimminent != immanent
- mzs 6y ago>As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.
- Shivetya 6y agoI made a comment before to the effect, what happens when you are banned permanently from the biggest social media platforms currently in existence? Will these bans carry over and will they start to affect any who oppose the bans or simply parrot what he says elsewhere? Will these spawn new social media sites or will they damage existing ones or do both? This is all so fascinating and frightening at the same time. People may want to claim there is no government interference but these sites have for many years recently reacted to the threat of it which in turn effectively is what is happening now. I am just find this all so bizarre but I think these sites figure they can act now simply because in a short time he will not be in his position of power and lose the bully pulpit which he can use without them
- metabagel 6y agoTrump will take up shop on Parler and be welcomed with open arms.
- nopriorarrests 6y agoParler is dead, aka banned by apple and google 1-2 hours ago.
- klyrs 6y agoNot yet... so far he's gotten slapped for using @POTUS and @TeamTrump. Is this the "bargaining" phase of grief?
- beerandt 6y agoIn other words: Never let a good crises go to waste.
- trianglem 6y agoCalling terrorists patriots sounds like a stellar reason to ban him. This is prime, low on content, high on wall-of-text rationalization.
- _yhdy 6y ago“Wall of text rationalization” That’s a great term. They write dozens of inaccurate statements stitched together with their own emotional baggage. What’s the result? You have no idea where to attack/address/start because their entire wall of text is riddled with false assumptions and straight misinformation. Never seen one Trump supporter have clear, cogent thoughts.
- rattlesnakedave 6y ago>I think it will have some negative 2nd/3rd order effects. that they haven't yet realized. This is correct. The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. I’m sure that’s not what we need, but I’m also sure that there is no good way out of this mess.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe people that stormed the capital have been pretty clear about their position here: they plan to continue escalating unless Trump is installed into power for a second term. There's nothing we can do to meet people who think like that halfway; the only course of action which might avert further tragedies is to convince them that they aren't very powerful and won't be able to achieve their goals.
- rattlesnakedave 6y agoIf you see their radicalization as the problem instead of a symptom you’re missing the plot.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI see it as a symptom, but the underlying problems are complex and can't be resolved over the next 2 weeks. So we need a stopgap solution to prevent the violent attack many of them have promised for the Inauguration.
- odessacubbage 6y agothe stopgap was the supreme court and they've chosen to be derelict in their duties. these people just want their case to be heard. in absence of doing so, the narrative around the election is being entirely defined to them by lin wood. this situation is a chinese fingertrap, force will only make it worse.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
- dredmorbius 6y agoThe environment has changed. Previously theoretic risks are now manifest, demonstrated, and cognizable. Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred. The instigator is unrepentent and non-credible in what are at best tepid disavowals. The totality of context has changed. If "he has tweeted worse things in the past", the undeniable impact is abundantly clear. The ban is absolutely warranted. If anything, it is many years too late. Twitter specifically address these points: Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service. From TFA
- bargl 6y agoI agree with the action and disagree with their justification. Because of the weakness of their justification, this could be further gasoline on the fire for his 74 million supporters. I frequently find myself having to argue with said supporters, and I can't argue that this justification makes sense other than to say... well they should have banned him before hand. It feels like they were looking for almost anything remotely shitty that Trump said to ban him. More specifically, they are looking for a reason to ban him based on saying anything not in support of the next administration, because of his supporters storming the capital. I can see the chain of logic here, I just think it's a little weak and being selectively enforced. Edited: to make more sense hopefully.
- dredmorbius 6y agoHis supporters are already on fire. This is reducing repeat ignition and stilling winds fanning flames. See Chamberlain on the effectiveness of appeasement.
- e40 6y agoThe difference this time: people died.
- throwaway2245 6y agoThis is an uncomfortable suggestion, considering that in 2020, there were mass protests about relevant deaths.
- pvorb 6y agoI really wish this would've been the first time that tweets by Donald Trump led to deaths.
- root_axis 6y agoTrump's own behavior is the strongest case imaginable, if you're not already convinced he deserves the ban nothing twitter says is going to change that.
- jsight 6y agoThe attempts to silence millions of people are a big part of why those millions are so upset. Its a terrible precedent to suppress these voices, regardless of the opinions about them.
- whyleyc 6y agoThey were literally just given the right to exercise their voices in a democratic election. That’s the opposite of silence.
- zdragnar 6y agoThey believe they were silenced via fraudulent actions during the election. To date, no court has tried evidence, nor have any administrations publicly committed to audits. They are being told by the other side that there is no evidence, but this is the same other side they think have been lying to them for years, so of course these people will not believe the other side.
- whyleyc 6y ago“To date, no court has tried evidence, nor have any administrations publicly committed to audits” Trump’s team has notched up over 60 losses in court so far.[1] “They are being told by the other side that there is no evidence, but this is the same other side they think have been lying to them for years, so of course these people will not believe the other side.” Actually at this point they are being told that by senior leaders from their own side - see the statements from Republicans Brad Raffensperger and Mitch McConnell this week. [1]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-election-court-losses-electoral-college https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-electi...
- Cullinet 6y agoand isn't the other side remembered for making the same claims for FL and Gore? or is that even part of this now it's gone so far?
- testrun 6y ago
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoThis seems like a very "engineer" response to what went on in that it misses the forest for the trees, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way (I often do it myself), just in a matter-of-fact sort of way. On one hand, I agree with you, the actual content of those tweets is much milder than what he has tweeted before. On the other hand, that absolutely does not matter, at all. 99% of people aren't even going to read the details of what he was banned for. Those who are against him are going to think it was long overdue, and those who love him are going to see it as further evidence of Big Bad Big Tech. But in any case, the actual real, violent assault on the Capitol that was fomented by Trump is the important context of why he was banned - the details of the individual tweets are almost irrelevant.
- wolco5 6y agoUsing that logic you are banning him because riots happened; Banning him for actions that occurred outside of twitter. Is the beginning where people get banned from social media for being part of a unwanted group. A case could be made for preventing anyone who has gone to jail from being on the platform in the efforts to cutdown on future crime / increase children safety, etc.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoRiots didn't "just happen". They happened because Trump held a rally telling his followers the lie that what was going on in the Capitol was stealing the election from him, and to march on the Capitol. His tweets were part of that message. The fact that those two particular tweets were not the most egregious ones he's ever made is pretty irrelevant.
- llcoolv 6y agoDisclaimer: I am a libertarian. While I definetely recognise Trump as the lesser evil, I know very very well from family experience (eastern europeans caught between hitler and stalin) that chosing the lesser evil is guaranteed to bring you evil, and wholeheartedly supporting it means you become the evil, so it is certainly not a worhtwile compromise. Still I don't believe it is fair what the media is saying. When things got hairy - he was doing his absolute best to calm people down, his election fraud arguments are quite solid (just that the statistical probability of Biden getting more votes than Obama, but only in the 5 states that mattered being one to quadrillions..., not to mention the affidavits, leaked videos, etc). Still, it is extremely surprising how his supporters went from doing truck and yacht rallies (regattas(?)) to storming the capitol with violence (!!!!!). And quite frightening actually. Now it is confirmed that some good portion of the stormers were Antifa, probably angry after rooting for the Democrats all summer, just to be ignored once election victory was guaranteed. This is even more scary. WWII ended up well, only thanks to the fact that the bad guys were fighting each other. I am a well-trained gun-owner and I am perfectly aware that the one and only good thing that could be achieved through violence is preventing further violence. I am also aware of the pain and damage modern warfare is able to inflict and all of what happened makes me feel extremely weird and a bit scared for my family... P.S. I apologise for infringing the rules, I am aware this is not the right place for it and would be perfectly happy if my comment against racism and marxism is removed.
- moonbug 6y ago>Disclaimer: I am a libertarian That saved me 40 seconds of my life. thanks!
- llcoolv 6y agoWell, thank you for your prejudice. Hope you feel a better person than a god-damn racist, nazi, commie or some other form of collectivist shithead.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't break the site guidelines yourself, regardless of how badly some other commenter has behaved. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- paxys 6y agoThe biggest reason for the timing IMO is the Senate races in Georgia. Now that Dems are in control of all chambers and Biden's appointments (to FCC and others) can go through, net neutrality is safe and section 230 is no longer in danger of being repealed, so Twitter will not face any consequences for the ban.
- wernercd 6y ago> 230 is safe Both sides have said 230 needs fixed/removed, if for different reasons. to think 230 can't be removed/fixed now is laughable. https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-section-230-tech-firms-regulated-treated-as-publishers-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-section-230-tech-firms... > President-elect Joe Biden has said that he wants to revoke Section 230. When Biden was vice president under Obama, the administration was largely hands-off when it came to the tech industry. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-te... > Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told The New York Times editorial board that tech’s legal shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be revoked. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/04/trump-biden-pelosi-section-230-repeal-facebook-twitter-google/4132529001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/04/trump-biden-p... > Democrats, including President-elect Joe Biden, urged Congress to revise Section 230 to force tech companies to remove hate speech and extremism, election interference and falsehoods. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Section 230 a gift to Big Tech. "It is not out of the question that that could be removed," she said in 2019.
- trumpthrow 6y agoLies.
- syockit 6y agoAs an outsider, the situation is quite amusing to see. One side wants to revoke 230 so that the tech companies would stop policing content. Another side wants to revoke it so that the companies would police more content instead.
- tima101 6y agoWould you change your opinion if your life or life of your family member depends on what president says on Twitter? Can you put yourself into shoes of SOS of Georgia, policeman in DC, senator Lindsey Graham? The mob will tear them apart if they had a chance and mob is advised to do so by Trump. I live in Trump country. A lot of Trump supporters take his calls to action literally. Should someone's freedom be curbed if it causes harm and death to someone else? Practically though he will still have ways to reach his base. It'd be okay if they cook in their own soup but problem is that their madness spills over and innocent people get harassed, hurt and now killed. Imagine being on the plane with dozen of Trump supporters and no bodyguard that want to punish you? That's how Mitt Romney felt few days ago. Whose freedom of speech created this situation?
- lacker 6y agocould have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly Twitter is never going to convince everyone that they are being fair, and that isn't their goal here. A better way to think of their timing is: "You come at the king, you best not miss." If Twitter had banned Trump pre-election and Trump had won anyway, the political battle afterwards for the US government to censor social media would have been terrible. Now that Trump is a lame duck and top Republicans have criticized his actions, Twitter is acting from a position of strength. So, it's certainly taking advantage of the moment. It's a brief period when the Republican party will be unable to strongly push back against banning Trump. If they successfully pull this off, not only will Twitter get rid of an annoyance, they will set a valuable precedent that they have the right to ban the US President from their platform.
- MrMan 6y agoTwitter has probably been given detailed information by the FBI about upcoming attacks being coordinated
- chaostheory 6y ago> This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. I don't blame them. Would you rather ban a vindictive US president or an outgoing, lame duck US president in his final days of office? Besides, regardless of how you feel about him, he's one of the main reasons Twitter is still relevant today. If they banned him sooner, they would have lost a ton of traffic. To be clear, I am not for or against Twitter. I'm just making sense of their rationale.
- shadowgovt 6y agoNegative 2nd / 3rd order effects were inevitable when they made the "newsworthiness" carve-out in the first place. One rule for the king and one for the commoners isn't a very sustainable policy.
- sthnblllII 6y agoTrump was democratically elected (by commoners). Twitter was built with wealthy private investor money. The fact that Twitter banned many of the commoners who elected Trump, but couldn't ban Trump himself until now due to the fear of public backlash is a testament to how anti-democratic it is to have private control over the national means of communication.
- starfallg 6y agoYour right to shout doesn't override my right to not have to listen to you. And it so happens that most people don't want to listen or give their platform to a sore loser looking to overturn a democratic election by force. Actually sore loser is a rather generous term. In Europe we call these people fascists.
- disgrunt 6y ago> Your right to shout doesn't override my right to not have to listen to you. So don't "follow" him? You know, that thing you do on Twitter to "listen" to people?
- starfallg 6y agoOr give you my platform to shout from. You missed this part.
- sthnblllII 6y agoTwitter is not "your platform". It exists because almost the whole country uses it. Therefore, not just corporate executives, but the whole nation should decide what speech is allowed, and we already have! Speech in privately-owned public spaces like Twitter is governed by the First Amendment to the constitution. https://jcalebjones.com/2020/10/15/the-first-amendment-and-company-towns/ https://jcalebjones.com/2020/10/15/the-first-amendment-and-c...
- tootie 6y agoThat's just incredibly obtuse. Obviously "patriot" isn't an epithet but applying to the people you just incited to an armed revolt against our elected government makes this absolute worst thing he's ever said.
- konjin 6y ago>(Also because apparently I have to state this explicitly in every comment related to Trump: I do not support Trump, his supporters, the recent events that occurred at the capitol, etc etc) The manichaean thinking from both sides is what is really going to doom us in the long term. The other side isn't ever interested in improving the state of the world, they are evil and must be stopped. Even when they say the exact same things you said two weeks ago they are wrong, because it doesn't matter what is said, it matters who said it. Best of luck to the future octopi civilization that will uncover these servers in the submersed ruins of the US.
- markus_zhang 6y agoBecause it's political.
- scythe 6y agoYou're evaluating the ban in terms of Twitter as a moral regulator of discussion, not as a media company seeking to control a maximal share of the discourse. Trump was allowed to use the platform because media companies used it to follow him and Twitter wants everyone at CNN and FOX to be reading Twitter. Trump was always going to be permanently banned from Twitter when he was no longer politically relevant simply because he's broken the rules literally hundreds of times. It simply happens that he finally ranted himself into irrelevance (Facebook's ban helps here) and Twitter realized that they could push the ban up two weeks and snag a bit of the spotlight.
- pvorb 6y agoWhile I can understand Twitter's move, I think a permanent suspension of the account will do a disservice in the long run, at least the way it is implemented right now. Each and every tweet by him now simply shows "This tweet is unavailable." See the legendary covfefe tweet, for instance: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86976699489946828 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86976699489946828... I would prefer if they marked his account as read-only. Maybe after the inauguration.
- jxcole 6y agoIANAL, but one possibility that comes to mind is that these examples are specifically chosen to limit liability. For example, if they banned Trump today based on comments he made a month ago, then someone could sue twitter for allowing speech they themselves admitted caused violence.
- bdowling 6y ago> then someone could sue twitter Twitter is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which states in relevant part, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Here, Twitter is the provider of the interactive computer service (Twitter) that will not be treated as publisher or speaker of the information (tweets) provided by another information content provider (@realDonaldTrump). Therefore, Twitter will not face any civil liability for Trump's tweets.
- dillondoyle 6y agoI'm scared for the inauguration. Already lots of chat on the same forums/parlor/etc The scaffolding and wooden structure they were on is the JCCIC built platform, and that disgusting video of the tunnel is where POTUS walks out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U
- ncann 6y agoIronically, I was worried about it before, but not now. Now that the Capitol Hill event has happened, the security effort will undoubtedly be multiplied multiple times over.
- hypervisorxxx 6y agoPatriots historically refer to citizens who have taken to arms to defend their country. When has he ever used this term before to refer to his supporters? It's not a good time to begin to refer to your supporters in the context of using weapons to defend the country on the heels of the capitol building being stormed and four people dying during a final election recount. The thing about manipulation is it always claims plausible deniability. We all know this. "It's heavily taking advantage of the moment." Umm yes. Regardless of whether you are a republican or a democrat, storming capitol hill during an election recount diminishes the validity of either party and the country as a whole. This country is the center for innovation and generally the most sought after democracy in the world. The entire world is watching. Taking advantage of the moment is exactly what he is doing. If you read about coups in the past there was never an explicit sentence that drew the line between now I am and evil dictator and now I am not. It was building an army of radicalized supporters, patriots, if you will while government officials around the person in power dropped like flies as things escalated much like what is happening now. We do not need to repeat history to say we proved he did it because by that time it will be too late. It is clear for months trump has been warned of how this kind of inflammatory behavior will impact the people at large and potentially radicalize either side and he has been nothing but inflammatory. If he really cared about securing democracy at large as opposed to his own power in office he would be taking extra precautions at this point. He is doing the opposite. I get what you mean though. Unfortunately both sides have significant radicalized sides now. And looting storming buildings and murdering law enforcement and lighting fire to buildings has been normalized now by both sides in 2020. My parents are trumpers in the deep south and these are the things they have said to me in the past couple of days: Mark Zuckerberg is an abusive dictator not Trump. My mother condescendingly whispered to me poor thing noone told me all the protestors were antifa who knew if they didn't storm the building and steal the ballots that trump would win. So they were all actually secret democrats. They both believe trump is the rightful president for the next term.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Tycho 6y agoThe news media reliably produces these “something must be done” stories that the powerful can then use as cover for actions they normally wouldn’t dare to take. And all at the same time - no coordination necessary, no central agenda, just an understanding that for some short period, all sorts of questionable actions will be excusable. A sort of Schelling point for anti-societal behaviour.
- d1zzy 6y agoThat may be a factor but I think it's pretty easy to see why banning him now (instead of earlier) could be done without the reasons you invoked: 1. His tweets didn't incite angry mobs to assault federal buildings before 2. Some time ago when Twitter was defending why they aren't banning his account, they said something about this effectively being a public government account so banning it would do more bad than good (and instead Twitter went ahead and "annotated" his tweets instead of just removing them). This determination had both pros and cons for Trump, the pro being much harder to ban his account but the con being that he couldn't block people from replying to his tweets anymore. With him now out of office his account loses that status so it should be much easier to ban it.
- bdowling 6y ago> Perhaps they have a strategic reason for going about this how they did One advantage may be that once the context is forgotten it will appear that Twitter has set a low bar for banning a powerful world leader from the platform.
- ideamotor 6y agoBlah blah blah
- pupdogg 6y agoRegardless of your beliefs, today is a sad day for free speech.
- piyush_soni 6y agoBy that if you mean 'violent inciting free speech', then yes, sad day for that.
- ryanSrich 6y agoI’m for all speech. Regardless if I agree with it or not. I would rather debate ideas I disagree with rather than they fester underground. “violent inciting free speech” is a subject take on Trump’s tweets whether you like it or not. I’d rather make that distinction for myself instead of relying on the judgment of some Twitter employee I’ve never met.
- piyush_soni 6y agoYes, I can make my own judgements from the tweets, so don't need some Twitter employee to tell me the same. I think he should have been banned a lot sooner.
- ryanSrich 6y agoCool, and you're free to block any account you want. Twitter even provides multiple ways to avoid seeing an account. So the issue was already solved. No need to further censor ideas. Individuals can make their own decision.
- piyush_soni 6y agoI will block his account, but his followers will not, that's precisely the problem, and the whole point. They will commit violence and vandalize public property instead.
- 6y ago
- stjohnswarts 6y agoI can't agree, this is the peak of the trump era, a last hoorah for him and his followers. They will now be pushed to the fringe and Trump will go to jail for a significant amount of time in New York for serious tax fraud and bank fraud no doubt.
- prvc 6y ago>It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case Doing so is an advantage if you want to create a display of raw power. The poorer the justification, the better.
- forgingahead 6y ago(Also because apparently I have to state this explicitly in every comment related to Trump: I do not support Trump, his supporters, the recent events that occurred at the capitol, etc etc) It is a horrible state of affairs where you need this disclaimer in order for your ideas to be taken more seriously. Not directed at you personally, but as a descriptor of the situation. Is it any surprise people are angry and furious and lashing out when they are dismissed solely on having differences of opinions from the establishment?
- anonytrary 6y agoTwitter, Facebook et al. have been getting a lot of flak recently for having algorithms that lead to radicalization of users (i.e. maximizing engagement/controversy for ad revenue). I think Trump is the best scapegoat they have for the alt-right radicalization phenomenon, rather than the platform themselves. The events that transpired recently are a perfect distraction for a deeper problem that lies with Big Tech. (Similarly... I don't support Trump either, etc. etc.)
- CamperBob2 6y agoAnother possibility: Twitter and Facebook have become aware of skulduggery in progress that we don't know anything about yet, such as a plot centered on the inauguration ceremony on the 20th, and don't want anything to do with its participants. Facebook in particular will obviously be the first to know about any such plot, long before any intelligence or law-enforcement agency. Twitter wouldn't be far behind.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zthrowaway 6y agoHe’s not going to be in power much longer, so there’s no harm ruffling his feathers now. They have confirmation with the Biden certification. That’s really all it is.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]