25 ms·
I 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
by handmodel 6y ago
I 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]
- ipsocannibal 6y agoCensorship driving people to violence in this case is much like a girl being pretty driving a goon to rape. The cause of the act in both cases is the perpetrators warped sense of ownership. Specifically ownership of other's thoughts, body, and time. They would feel entitled to that ownership whether met with resistence or not. In this case censorship seems reasonable otherwise you end up tacitly fostering the perpetrators view of ownership with your submission.
- thefucnjosh 6y agoGiven Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
- bra-ket 6y agomainstream media printed front page articles inciting BLM riots for months. Why the double standard?
- lixtra 6y agoYou should at least give an example to such a claim.
- lodi 6y agohttps://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... "[Looting] also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories. So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free." "Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police. It gets to the very root of the way those three things are interconnected. And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be. And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about — that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory." "But there's also another factor, which is anti-Blackness and contempt for poor people who want to live a better life, which looting immediately provides. One thing about looting is it freaks people out. But in terms of potential crimes that people can commit against the state, it's basically nonviolent. You're mass shoplifting. Most stores are insured; it's just hurting insurance companies on some level. It's just money. It's just property. It's not actually hurting any people."
- ABeeSea 6y agoWhat newspaper or website was that article on the “front page” of? The “code switch” podcast on NPR isn’t front page of anything.
- hrbf 6y agoI believe they did so to fire a warning shot, to be able to argue later that they were not banning immediately. I bet they knew that guy wouldn’t be able to keep his thumbs in his pockets – and that’s 100% on him.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoThe NYT published Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America after 9/11 and it is still a very important piece of history. It gives real insight into the thoughts of someone overseas who's seen the policy outcomes of American foreign policy that most Americans at the time were totally unaware of and why it provoked them into taking drastic (and horrible, terrible, wrong) measures. People aren't stupid. They can read and understand and make their own decisions about stuff.
- 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?