14 ms·

Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seem

• SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  No, that's not just you. They probably wanted to align with other social media platforms, who had already permanently suspended him yesterday.
• thrill 6y ago
  They hardly need to make a court case at this point.
• danaliv 6y ago
  They didn’t just look at the tweets; they looked at how they’re actually being received. I think that’s a crucial distinction.
  • copperwater69 6y ago
    I'm receiving your benign post in a harmful manner. What should we do in this situation?
    • scoopertrooper 6y ago
      How many police officers have you killed since receiving this post?
      • copperwater69 6y ago
        The same amount killed from those two trump tweets
        • scoopertrooper 6y ago
          No mention of the hundreds of preceded them? Actions have consequences.
          • totony 6y ago
            As a data point, I haven't killed anyone because of trump tweets
            • scoopertrooper 6y ago
              The people that receive Trump tweets and go on to attempt a violent insurrection against the government are admittedly in the long tail; I don't think that fact negates the fact it happened.
              • totony 6y ago
                But isn't there always a long tail that will cause chaos or take things in a bad way? Especially with the sheer size of Trump's audience.
                • scoopertrooper 6y ago
                  It's not as though Donald Trump was tweeting about his favourite national holidays since the election and some lone wolf got the wrong idea. Donald Trump has consistently used his Twitter account to demonise the people that were in the building that was attacked. He suggested that the Democratic Party, in coalition with a supposed 'deep state', systematically rigged an election. He posted and retweeted outrageous conspiracies about how these forces worked to steal the election and abrogate the American constitution. More than that, he used his Twitter account to promote the very rally that preceded the act of insurrection. > I hope the Democrats, and even more importantly, the weak and ineffective RINO section of the Republican Party, are looking at the thousands of people pouring into D.C. They won’t stand for a landslide election victory to be stolen. @senatemajldr @JohnCornyn @SenJohnThune > Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen by emboldened Radical Left Democrats. Our Country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore! We hear you (and love you) from the Oval Office. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! > The “Surrender Caucus” within the Republican Party will go down in infamy as weak and ineffective “guardians” of our Nation, who were willing to accept the certification of fraudulent presidential numbers! > How can you certify an election when the numbers being certified are verifiably WRONG. You will see the real numbers tonight during my speech, but especially on JANUARY 6th. @SenTomCotton Republicans have pluses & minuses, but one thing is sure, THEY NEVER FORGET! > 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! > “Georgia election data, just revealed, shows that over 17,000 votes illegally flipped from Trump to Biden.” @OANN This alone (there are many other irregularities) is enough to easily “swing Georgia to Trump”. #StopTheSteal @HawleyMO @SenTedCruz @Jim_Jordan > The number of cases and deaths of the China Virus is far exaggerated in the United States because of @CDCgov’s ridiculous method of determination compared to other countries, many of whom report, purposely, very inaccurately and low. “When in doubt, call it Covid.” Fake News! > An attempt to steal a landslide win. Can’t let it happen! https://t.co/sKn4iTjUy0 https://t.co/sKn4iTjUy0 > ....that, quite frankly, didn’t have much of a chance, like 7, 8 or 9. The Presidential Election was Rigged with hundreds of thousands of ballots mysteriously flowing into Swing States very late at night as everyone thought the election was easily won by me. There were many.... > I will be speaking at the SAVE AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive early — doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS! https://t.co/k4blXESc0c https://t.co/k4blXESc0c > RT @AmyKremer: We are excited to announce the site of our January 6th event will be The Ellipse in the President’s Park, just steps from th… https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
    • dageshi 6y ago
      Construct your own bubble of reality to legitimise any and all actions you might choose to take?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • nkrisc 6y ago
      If it's only you, then nothing.
    • danaliv 6y ago
      I suspect no matter what we do you’re going to continue arguing in bad faith while pretending nothing happened Wednesday and Trump isn’t sui generis.
    • thereare5lights 6y ago
      Prove their point by getting millions of others to also receive it in a harmful manner and then also have them take violent action.
    • 1propionyl 6y ago
      Ah, but here's the rub: danaliv isn't (I don't think...) the President of the United States, much less one who has repeatedly offered support and comfort to people who have committed acts of violence and insurrection. Context matters.
      • danaliv 6y ago
        > danaliv isn't (I don't think...) the President of the United States Now there’s a terrifying thought.
    • bcrosby95 6y ago
      The problem is whether through incompetence or on purpose, Donald Trump has a history of being unable to - unequivocally - denounce the people that do this shit in his name. He always throws in random bullshit that they can interpret as support for their actions and goals. Personally I just think he has a hard time saying bad things about people that support him. But it's a pretty big fucking problem when they're doing things like this.
    • santoshalper 6y ago
      The tweets were not benign, and the repercussions were obvious and many people predicted this outcome. You are being hopelessly obtuse because you are blinded by fanaticism.
  • busymom0 6y ago
    That's asinine. That's like saying I don't care what you said, I care what I think you said.
    • danaliv 6y ago
      No, they care what Trump’s followers think he said, because they’ve already committed one heinous act of violence. Read this carefully. They are looking at the actual response to these tweets. Not their own personal feelings. The actual effects on other Twitter users.
      • busymom0 6y ago
        What is the same violence when anti-kavanaugh protestors stormed the senate 2 years ago? And how about Twitter allowing Antifa accounts on their platform? And how about the Iranian leader literally tweeting assassination of the President?
      • syshum 6y ago
        That is a very dangerous prescient. Lets see if this new way of looking at tweets is applied evenly across the political spectrum because it is a fundamental shift for Twitter
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          Do you have a less dangerous alternative?
          • syshum 6y ago
            For me I am cultural Free Speech Absolutist, I see censorship as a far greater threat and history generally agree with my position. Now the most common retort is "but its a private platform" which is true, but it also enjoys regulated protections from liability those protections should come with strings attach to them to uphold and honor the free speech rights of the public. As to the danger, anyone that believes Trump is the source, cause, or even primary instigator of what is happening is not paying attention to reality or the last 20+ years or so of social unrest. I can assure you if/when Trump is banned from all platforms and is relegated to the dust bins of society to fundamental cultural problems that are the root of the unrest will still be there Trump is a symptom, Avatar, a Symbol of the problem for sure, Trump can be a lightening rod I will not deny that either. However removing one lightening rod will not make the lightening disappear it will just find another path. I do not have a solution to those cultural problems either, and that is even more worrisome than Twitter censoring people, which honestly I wish they would have done in 2016 as twitter would be a less relevant platform today which is why they did not in 2016 they need Trump just as much as Trump needed them i do know that censorship (private or public) is not the path to unity, it as never worked in history so there is no reason to believe it will work in the current year.. EDIT: ------------------ Since I have now been throttled for having incorrect opions allow me to respond to the below comment here >> @krapp says "That's why the First Amendment only applies to Congress" That is a very simplistic take, and I never once said anything about the 1st Amendment. Free Speech is a natural right of human's which is protected from government infringement by the 1st amendment, but the 1st amendment does not grant or bestow this right upon us, we have simply by being alive This is also called the Lockean understanding of Rights. You have also conflated Free Speech and the Right os Association, another natural right everyone has. The right of association is what gives twitter the ethical foundation to ban or refuse to publish the words of anyone they choose Which I 100% support, however the fly in the ointment is the fact that congress has given special legal liability protections to Twitter where by they will not be held liable if they choose to associate with the public at large as a platform. IMO granting these liabilities shields to twitter, twitter should also have to accept they will welcome all legal protected speech. They would also be free to choose to reject that liability shield and retain their right of association.
  • jacobriis 6y ago
    Reported this comment for incitement to violence.
• war1025 6y ago
  They've wanted to ban him since day one. They just have the political backing to do it now.
  • soupson 6y ago
    They have absolutely not wanted to ban him since day 1. He brings in millions of users and clicks.
    • dexen 6y ago
      Two competing interests: let's ban our political opponent and let's keep our cash cow. The middle management & line workers of Twitter can monetize their small Twitter stock portfolios pretty quick without shifting the market all that much. Jack, on the other hand, would take a major hit if he tried to sell off his. =edit= Clarification on content_sesh's good point: I don't assume whether Jack agrees or disagrees with Trump's points. They are billionaires, might be "frenemies" for all we know. I do assume Jack likes a cash-cow for his major property, Twitter - and tries to balance the upsides & downsides of hosting Trump's contentious content.
      • content_sesh 6y ago
        I"m not sure where you're getting the idea that Jack disagrees with most or even many of Trump's policies. edit to clarify in response to parent's edit (lol): I don't doubt Twitter enjoyed being the primary platform for our extremely online president. I was getting at the "political opponents" thing. I feel there's a tendency where people like Jack and Zuckerburg get categorized as "not on the right politically", because they work in tech and live in California I guess. I disagree with that characterization, and my main reason is how they've allowed their platforms to be used. For a very long time now, I've personally seen Twitter being used to amplify regressive, right-wing views while quashing (via suspension or permanent suspension) leftist voices that challenge them. The best way I can describe it succinctly would be a pervasive double-standard when applying their rules. So I, personally, specifically do not believe that Jack or Twitter leadership have aligned themselves politically against the right.
• fotta 6y ago
  Agreed. I don't disagree with the ban, but their justification is weak.
  • dionian 6y ago
    If you're saying they don't have a good reason, but you dont like the guy so you're glad it happened to him... don't you see how this is a problematic precedent? If trump supporters were in the majority would it be ok for them to censor democrats?
    • fotta 6y ago
      No, I'm saying _this_ reason was bad, the one cited. I think that there was plenty better evidence from his past tweet history to justify it.
• lovetocode 6y ago
  Yeah I feel the same way. I don’t like Trump but Twitter’s justification is weak and their message is pandering to the masses. No sustenance.
• snoshy 6y ago
  Agreed. It very well may be coded speak to rile up some supporters and drive them to violence, but that's hardly clear to the average observer. There are so many other instances of direct calls to incite violence, it's rather sad that these were the two that broke the camel's back.
  • 1MachineElf 6y ago
    The problem with saying speech is a "dog whistle" is that there is no defense against it. If people in power do not trust my words, then how can I convince them that they are trustworthy without appeasing them?
• scoopertrooper 6y ago
  I agree, inciting that violent mob to storm the Capitol building, while a join session was certifying the election seems to be a better reason.
• BitwiseFool 6y ago
  It's extremely weak, but that doesn't matter. Twitter has been wanting to do this for a very long time. This was the perfect catalyst and they're going to be lauded for doing so by the left.
  • endymi0n 6y ago
    Partly maybe, but for most it‘s too little, too late. Banning him for two of his weakest tweets on a history of four years of inciting hatred, bigotism and violence does not put a good light on Twitter. This smells like some extremely transparent opportunism after all they‘ve earned with 45.
    • BitwiseFool 6y ago
      I couldn't have said it any better. It's pure opportunism and moral grandstanding.
      • emilsedgh 6y ago
        The problem is half the country sees the world in a different way. They already are yelling "censorship".
        • ibeckermayer 6y ago
          As a matter of fact this is censorship.
          • CathedralBorrow 6y ago
            That's a matter of opinion.
      • zmmmmm 6y ago
        The strongest part of it seems to be that they cite specific activity on Twitter to organise a second attack on the Capitol which is directly linked to these tweets. It seems reasonable to me on the basis that they are basing their actions on actual risk of actual violence occurring as a result of statements. So they have ignored everything up to now because there was not tangible evidence that violence could result. They're now in a position where there is tangible evidence that violence is a realistic outcome from Trump's words, and this has altered their interpretation of his statements generally.
• mc32 6y ago
  My take, and I hope I’m wrong, is they want to set a tone for a clear agenda. It goes back to the early XX century when when you wanted to control people you ensured taking over the media first and foremost.
  • Nbox9 6y ago
    Can someone explain what the XX century is?
    • adamjb 6y ago
      20th century in roman numerals
      • clouddrover 6y ago
        I think you're thinking of MM, which was the last year of the 20th century.
        • HPsquared 6y ago
          That would be MCMXCIX
          • clouddrover 6y ago
            No, 2000 was the last year. There was no year zero.
            • HPsquared 6y ago
              Hmm, interesting - I stand corrected. So the first millennium was years 1 through 1000. First I've heard of it! Another casualty of 1-based indexing I suppose. Perhaps the people setting the system up didn't have a concept of 'zero'?
              • ebruchez 6y ago
• gnulinux 6y ago
  I think the first tweet is a good argument. I personally think second tweet is not only a stretch it's the exact kind of tweet POTUS should have been using Twitter. He just says, in a normal manner, "I won't attend X" without SHOUTING or using weird adjectives like "nasty woman" or whatever. I think it's important to understand that Twitter needs to be very conservative here. All social media banned Trump, and twitter really is the last place his voice can be heard (via a famous privately-owned social media organ). Well, if Trump tweets "I'm gonna nuke Iran" tomorrow they don't want to be the place Trump announces this.
  • Zelphyr 6y ago
    Well, if Trump tweets "I'm gonna nuke Iran" tomorrow they don't want to be the place Trump announces this. That is a far better argument for permanently suspending his account than what they cobbled together.
    • gnulinux 6y ago
      This is a simple extrapolation of their argument: > 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.
    • lenkite 6y ago
      Look at this record. Trump is the only President in the last 30 years that did not start a War or major military action.
      • thefucnjosh 6y ago
        Soleimani
  • PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
• hshshs2 6y ago
  it’s not so weak in context, his words lead to an unprecedented attack on the capitol, and another event is openly being planned online... it’s too risky to let him fan those flames as he has been.
• alkonaut 6y ago
  Agree. It would have looked better to just pick any of the top 100 worse recent tweets (which these aren’t). Or simply none at all. It’s a correct (late) call, but using these quotes will read to those who disagree as “we have nothing we just want to shut him down” which is unfortunate.
• taeric 6y ago
  Sadly, with how bad faith most things from Trump have been, I have to say I don't believe you on this one. Should it be weak, on just what you are looking at? I mean, yeah. You don't have to look hard to find that this is more than "merely" plausible. Odds are ridiculously high that the tweets were more fanning of flames.
• newguy1234 6y ago
  Yup and it might backfire in twitter's face because now apparently there is a mass exodus of conservatives going to platforms like parler. It is very likely that Trump will switch platforms and that will bring pressure on the stock price. I sold my TWTR shares and advise others to do the same.
  • dmode 6y ago
    What is the point of going to Parler if you are just talking to each other and agreeing ? Value of Twitter is that you are reaching a broader audience
    • danijelb 6y ago
      They are under a (false) impression that they are the majority and when everyone moves to Parler the broader audience will be on their platform. And twitter will become a place where the left is just talking to each other and agreeing. Of course, as we can all see the reality is completely opposite. On any conservative platform you'll find a narrow audience discussing only one thing - politics. And it's boring to discuss only politics, even to them.
    • newguy1234 6y ago
      What's the point of twitter if your favorite commentators aren't even on there? That's the issue. There will likely be a mass exodus of other conservative commentators to parler.
    • nashalo_nighly 6y ago
      For someone like Trump with a bruised ego, being welcomed by everyone like a religious figure can be very appealing I think.
    • cpursley 6y ago
      Do you see the irony in your comment? Echo, meet chamber.
      • dmode 6y ago
• davesque 6y ago
  In light of everything that's happened this week, I think the first tweet could easily be interpreted as having been intended to further stoke his followers' outrage. The 2nd tweet, while somewhat factual, I think also came off as incendiary and divisive. What excuse does he have at this point for not attending the inauguration other than to make yet another spiteful statement to increase tensions and, therefore, incite more violence? The full comments in the post detail similar reasoning. Update: As many people have pointed out (and as the Twitter post mentions), the 2nd tweet could also be interpreted as emphasizing that it would be safe to commit further violence at an event that he won't be attending. This is certainly a much more grave concern than the one I mentioned above.
  • xienze 6y ago
    > What excuse does he have at this point for not attending the inauguration other than to make yet another spiteful statement to increase tensions and, therefore, incite more violence? What excuse do the Democrats have for threatening another impeachment when 10 days isn’t even enough time to follow the process to completion? Not to mention that such a thing would no doubt rile up Trump supporters.
    • dawnerd 6y ago
      Precedent. You don't let someone get away with something simply because they're leaving shortly. Then you can argue at what point is the cutoff. Is it a year? a month?
      • xienze 6y ago
        But aren’t you concerned about the possibility of Trump voters going over the edge after that?
        • akiselev 6y ago
          They already have.
        • 6y ago
• chowells 6y ago
  No, those are what reality-based analysis looks like. You don't just pretend your principles control the world, you look at the way the world actually works. Words are never in a vacuum. The way they are interpreted matters. And it's false to claim you can't control how people are going to interpret what you say. Especially not when you've spent years training particular subgroups to interpret things exactly the way they are. This move is long overdue. Trump has been using this sort of language to promote stochastic violence for many years. It's not to Twitter's credit that they had to see the Capitol building overrun by insurrectionists before understanding that it's real and has been going on for years. But the analysis of the effect of those specific tweets is accurate.
  • lr4444lr 6y ago
    A devout pro-life person could use this exact justification to claim pro-choice people are promoting baby killing.
    • chowells 6y ago
      The argument would work the same way if reality was the same, sure. I'd think there was a very severe problem if there was someone going around broadcasting messages that thousands of people interpreted as orders to terminate fetuses. But that's not what's happening, so the same argument doesn't apply. No doctor believes they're on a a holy mission to end pregnancies. No one is looking for a leader to reinforce this viewpoint. That's very different from the reality in this situation.
      • lr4444lr 6y ago
        That's very much what's happening. The latest year for which I can find easy data (2018)[0] shows that over 600,000 legal abortions took place. That is aided and abetted by messaging that the primary concern is an expectant mother's choice to terminate or not, and the feticide is often deliberately obfuscated by concerns about general obstetric health, even though very few pregnancies pose a significant health risk that would require termination. Now don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice, but we should be honest about what's going on here. Even pro-choice advocates always talk about it "not being an easy decision" for most women, so there is definitely a lot of persuasion at work, both in direct consultation and in broader messages spread by leaders, advocacy groups, and the like. It doesn't change the reality of feticide, which depending on your ethics, can be considered a wicked act. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm
• nodamage 6y ago
  Taken in isolation the two tweets in particular don't seem that much crazier than anything else he has said over the past four years. However, given the overall context of what happened on Wednesday and the (now deleted) tweets leading up to the incident, there is sufficient justification (IMO) for a ban from those prior tweets alone.
• disgrunt 6y ago
  Snowflakes gonna flake.
  • dang 6y ago
    Would you please stop posting flamewar and political battle comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot and we ban that sort of account. The idea of this site is curious, thoughtful conversation. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting. I realize lots of other people are breaking them also, but that's not an excuse to do it yourself.
    • thesteamboat 6y ago
      Thanks for your efforts at moderating. This thread seems like it might be particularly thankless task, so here is some counter appreciation.
• fooey 6y ago
  It's always been a balancing act, weighing the newsworthiness of broadcasting the words of the POTUS versus the potential damage. The actions of his followers this week have finally tipped the scales too far.
• mrchess 6y ago
  When I saw the cryptic 1 sentence tweet that he wasn't going to be there, the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way. So perhaps it is a huge stretch to some, but we need to remember it is also not a stretch at all to many, especially given the recent events. Therein lies the danger.
  • 1propionyl 6y ago
    Same. If anything I was a bit surprised to see Twitter go there and read between the lines. But that was my immediate first thought, and likely that of a large number of folks.
  • danijelb 6y ago
    I've been browsing thedonald.win today to see how his supporters are reacting to recent events, and that is one of the ways some users interpreted his tweet. Other than that, a ton of crazy theories. They literally take any two-three words from his tweets and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. To give you an example, in one of the recent tweets he put words "GIANT VOICE" in caps and they interpreted it as a reference to a military communication system with the same name. From that other people started theorizing how Trump will use the military system to circumvent the "big tech censorship" and deliver some dirty secrets about his "enemies" So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way. And in their heads, this ban only gives them more "proof" that they are right.
    • mzs 6y ago
      Incidentally* about half an hour ago: >from discord: "While there is no evidence of the server being used to organize the Jan 6 riots, Discord decided to ban the entire server today due to its overt connection to an online forum used to incite violence and plan an armed insurrection in the United States" Cloudfare is still serving thedonald.win though. * https://twitter.com/alibreland/status/1347694525930680320 https://twitter.com/alibreland/status/1347694525930680320
    • 6y ago
• syshum 6y ago
  Once the election was lost it was a forgone conclusion he was going to be banned. This is weak justification and anyone with a non-partisan mind, or does not suffer from such an extreme bias agaist the target of this ban should be worried about the future of online censorship. However I am sure this will simply fall on deaf ears as Never Trump's will celebrate with out even considering the bigger picture, and Trump supports will view this just further evidence the system as rigged against Trump The ironic thing is this will do nothing to clam the most extreme of Trump supports most of whom have already been banned from twitter anyway, if anything this is tossing gasoline on the dumpster fire
• mempko 6y ago
  The thing is, Twitter has data on how people responded to those two Tweets. If Trump gets prosecuted, I expect we will see responses to Trumps tweets as evidence in court. My guess is they can make a statistical causal claim. Example, what if some of those who broke into the capital earlier replied to one of Trump's tweets in such a way as to suggest they were incited by Trump?
  • 1MachineElf 6y ago
    Were those actual people, or bots? Did the people say "yes, let's do a violent thing" or did Twitter interpret "yes, we will not give up" as a response to a dog whistle? There is no analysis showing how they came to that conclusion, and there is no trust in them from those who affected by these bans.
• xienze 6y ago
  > Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an even as call to violence seems like a huge stretch. Of course it is. They’ve been itching to ban him since day one but held off due to the negative PR of saying “the president of the US isn’t allowed on our platform” and the obvious fuel to the “bias in tech” fire. I’m not even mad, we all knew this day would come. What bothers me is there have been plenty of tweets all summer long by Democrats and others cheering on the protests which, to put it lightly, caused a bit of violence and certainly didn’t help in the spread of Covid. And there is of course the recent tweet where AOC said the point of protests is to make people uncomfortable. There is definitely more than one way someone could interpret the meaning of “uncomfortable”, for sure. I just wish Twitter and other big tech companies would apply the same principles across the board instead of selectively playing the “well if you consider it with THIS context...” game.
• andy_ppp 6y ago
  I agreed when I first read the tweets but the explanation about how the tweets have been interpreted as possibly causing more violence it’s now possible anything DJT says on Twitter will be taken as being promoting violence. This is unfortunate but it was Trump’s goal in many of the statements he’s made in the past.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• coliveira 6y ago
  You forget that he was already under a "soft ban" due to his previous activities on the platform. This was just the confirmation that he didn't change his behavior.
• smaili 6y ago
  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.
• webel0 6y ago
  This was my exact initial reaction. However, suppose that Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barack Obama had declined to attend the inauguration of there predecessors. That would surely trigger a crisis worthy of de-platforming. We’ve become somewhat numb to this sort of thing. I guess my second draft would have said, “We’ve allowed DJT a platform because he is the President of the United States. In light of all that he has said on Twitter over the last 10+ years, though, he is guilty of inciting hate and violence among his followers. [Cite myriad tweets and cases.] We were going to wait until he left office to suspend his account. In light of his most recent tweets indicating that he would not attend the inauguration, we think it prudent to move up this timeline...”
  • um_ya 6y ago
    Perhaps Trump supporters should have burnt down cities and destroyed businesses. Apparently everyone is okay with that, but it's "unacceptable" to protest and occupy the capital in protest. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.
    • objectivetruth 6y ago
      There are, in fact, many significant differences between "burning down a Burger King franchise" and "storming a country's legislature with the intent to depose and possibly execute elected officials."
    • jhardy54 6y ago
      > I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. It's called an echo chamber, and you should try to escape it if you can.
      • alentist 6y ago
        So should you.
        • jhardy54 6y ago
          "no u" It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Good luck.
• kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Could be a signal he expects violence at the inauguration. They really should just do it indoors in a joint session of Congress.
• mzs 6y ago
  No, those precise justifications were born-out en masse today on Parler, /pol/, & 8kun.
  • kinghajj 6y ago
    Can you loop the rest of us in? What happened today on those forums?
    • cycrutchfield 6y ago
      They are already plotting their next terrorist event for the inauguration
      • o_p 6y ago
        Im sure they are plotting a terrorist attack in a public site for all to see /s
        • cycrutchfield 6y ago
          Right. Because they already did it once, and most haven't gotten punished for it yet.
    • taurath 6y ago
      They’re posting specific dates and plans around lots of violence in the near future. It’s around if you go looking. Not by people with low follower count. That’s why parler is getting hit by Google play and Apple
• itronitron 6y ago
  The phrase you are looking for is 'cumulative effect'.
• skulk 6y ago
  you should go check out far right communities online, to them he may as well have said "Storm the inauguration on the 20th." He 100% deserved to be banned just for that comment's kairos.
• downandout 6y ago
  It was very weak, and in my opinion, is likely to have catastrophic consequences. They have - purposely, it seems - drawn battle lines for a further divided country. This will be seen by conservatives as a wholesale rejection of all conservative speech on the platform. They are going to abandon Twitter in favor of a clone that will welcome Trump. We will then have a conservative Twitter, and the existing liberal Twitter. Without the important balance between left and right, it’s going to be a free for all on both sides, with each amping each other up to retreat further and further into extreme parts of their respective sides. Twitter just inserted a nuclear bomb into the already delicate fault lines between left and right.
  • nojvek 6y ago
    The conservative right Twitter is called https://parler.com/ https://parler.com/ And yeah it’s gaining a lot of members recently.
• sangnoir 6y ago
  He got a 3rd strike. When twitter temporarily suspended him for 12 hours a few days ago, they explicitly warned him that any subsequent rule-breaking tweets would result in a permanent suspension. Subsequently, he posted relatively tame, but still rule-breaking tweets, and he got banned for it. No surprises there.
• Someone1234 6y ago
  Twitter has done a bad job communicating this. After the 12 hour ban, Trump's twitter account lost its special privilege too and instead of "blue tagging" his tweets they said they would just ban it next time. This was "next time" so they followed through and banned it: > Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.[0] I'm surprised more people aren't bringing this up. Per them this only needed to violate "Civic Integrity" which per their explanation it looks like it does. [0] https://twitter.com/twittersafety/status/1346970430062485505 https://twitter.com/twittersafety/status/1346970430062485505
  • mzs 6y ago
    Plus he never did delete the prior three offending tweets as he was supposed to prior to regaining full features of the account during that 12 hour period.
• TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The two quoted tweets are - quite reasonably - being parsed in the context of related social media activity elsewhere, some of which is far more worrying.
• zests 6y ago
  I sit here dumbfounded at all of this. People believe that Trump saying he won’t be somewhere is inciting violence. I saw conservatives lose their brain with Obama in 2008 (“ODS”) and I lost faith in “the right”. In 2015-2021 I lost whatever faith I had left in “the left” (“TDS”). Its been over four years of ridiculous takes in the media, including social media, and its not funny any more. Political fanaticism seems to lower IQ by 50 points (and EQ by even more.) I hope there are people who feel the same way and I wonder where is the best place to get away from the rabidness. Quarantine can’t end soon enough.
  • konjin 6y ago
    Welcome to the political sidelines. We enjoy bread, circuses and the inevitable collapse of industrial civilization,
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • anonfornoreason 6y ago
    You aren’t alone! My family and friends think I am either a closeted right wing racist, or a secret socialist. I have two friends who, like me, question the party dogma and don’t appreciate being nailed to any particular ideology. In my experience in Oregon about 5% of my family and peers are non-partisan but politically interested and informed. Welcome to the minority!
• dredmorbius 6y ago
  I find it exceedingly dificult to justify that conclusion based on Twitter's analysis: President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. From TFA.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sneak 6y ago
  Yes, it is a stretch. As others have pointed out, there are way better incidences of his rulebreaking than the ones they chose. This reflects poorly on Twitter.
• njharman 6y ago
  The actual reason is Jan 20th is pretty close now.