4 ms·
It is worth pointing out that Twitter had concrete near-term reasoning around incitement of further attacks on the capitol that they included in their reasoning
by contemporary343 6y ago
It is worth pointing out that Twitter had concrete near-term reasoning around incitement of further attacks on the capitol that they included in their reasoning - incitement is generally not protected speech (even though of course Twitter is a private platform and not restricted by the First Amendment). It is a legitimate concern that Trump would tacitly or explicitly encourage further mob attacks on the Capitol:
"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.
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."
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
I also understand, even if it's not consistent, that Twitter would maintain a policy-violating account if it is that of a major world leader on public interest grounds alone. Once he is no longer the head of government, such reasons no longer apply. Practically speaking, this reason for maintaining the account the last two weeks of his presidency was, I suspect, outweighed by the immediacy of the worry on further insurrection attempts. I fall into the small camp of people (it seems?) that thinks Twitter was right not to have suspended his account earlier, and is right to now.
- CivBase 6y agoThe two tweets are as follows: > “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” > “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” I do not support Trumps actions throughout all of this. But how are those incitements for violence, even in context?
- ng12 6y agoBecause Twitter has stolen the narrative. They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> They decided what Trump meant by those tweets for you No, they decided it for themselves. Other people in a position to relay, or not, the President's words get to make their own decision, too.
- danhak 6y agoThe second one can be read as a tacit nod that the inauguration is a “safe” target. I know many will see that as a stretch, but given the context and recent events, I do not.
- CivBase 6y agoBy that logic, Trump commenting on any of his attendance plans is "inciting violence". This goes far beyond a stretch.
- danhak 6y agoIf those comments are in the context of his supporters having just stormed the US Capitol at his behest, killing several people and derailing the confirmation of his political enemy, then yes.
- sesqu 6y agoThis was explicitly gone over in the announcement. The short of it is that they validate further attacks by promising Trump's allegiance, assistance, and a target.
- contemporary343 6y agoI think the context is key here. Independent of what happened on Wednesday they don’t constitute a real threat. But one has to update one’s prior.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]