28 ms·

If you think Trump incited violence, that is a crime which should be decided in a courtroom, and not in Mark Zuckerberg’s office. For what it’s worth, I don’t

by jpxw 6y ago

If you think Trump incited violence, that is a crime which should be decided in a courtroom, and not in Mark Zuckerberg’s office. For what it’s worth, I don’t think what Trump said was incitement, or even close to it. Irresponsible? Yes. Incitement? No.

landryraccoon 6y ago
I agree that this should be decided in a courtroom. If Trump wishes to sue Twitter or the US Government, he is more than free to do so. However, I think both his case and yours is undermined by the very, very strong circumstantial evidence that after his lawyer, Giuliani, called for "trial by combat" and he said that he would personally lead the crowd in a march on the Capitol on Jan 6th the violent insurrection actually took place is a very strong argument that he incited the uprising. Furthermore, the fact that even as these Trump supporters were occupying the Capitol he said that he "loves them", that also undermines any argument that he did not incite sedition.
zadokshi 6y ago
This is why social media platforms are anti competitive and in risk of anti trust lawsuits. You don’t get to twist trumps words and then ban the @POTUS account just because he threatens to create a competing platform. No reasonable person could take that as incitement. So the only logical answer is anti competitive behaviour, or political manipulation/interference.
andrei_says_ 6y ago
What trump did was incitement using carefully constructed language giving clear instructions while maintaining denialability. There’s no way you believe he was doing anything else. You’re basically pushing for the denialability part by pretending to be innocently surprised. No.
cmurf 6y ago
Trump wound them up with lies and conspiracies and urgency two hours before they went to the capital on his recommendation. This is certainly provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully which is the definition of incitement. The defendants will unquestionably be using the "Trump told us to" defense. Trump violated the terms more often and worse than regular people who were removed from the platform. Thousands of regular people kicked off for violating the terms and it's Donald Fucking Trump and Parler that gets folks in an uproar? Over things that happen all the time? By long standing service agreements? What?

by jpxw 6y ago

landryraccoon 6y ago

I agree that this should be decided in a courtroom. If Trump wishes to sue Twitter or the US Government, he is more than free to do so. However, I think both his case and yours is undermined by the very, very strong circumstantial evidence that after his lawyer, Giuliani, called for "trial by combat" and he said that he would personally lead the crowd in a march on the Capitol on Jan 6th the violent insurrection actually took place is a very strong argument that he incited the uprising. Furthermore, the fact that even as these Trump supporters were occupying the Capitol he said that he "loves them", that also undermines any argument that he did not incite sedition.

zadokshi 6y ago

This is why social media platforms are anti competitive and in risk of anti trust lawsuits. You don’t get to twist trumps words and then ban the @POTUS account just because he threatens to create a competing platform. No reasonable person could take that as incitement. So the only logical answer is anti competitive behaviour, or political manipulation/interference.

andrei_says_ 6y ago

What trump did was incitement using carefully constructed language giving clear instructions while maintaining denialability. There’s no way you believe he was doing anything else. You’re basically pushing for the denialability part by pretending to be innocently surprised. No.

cmurf 6y ago

Trump wound them up with lies and conspiracies and urgency two hours before they went to the capital on his recommendation. This is certainly provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully which is the definition of incitement. The defendants will unquestionably be using the "Trump told us to" defense. Trump violated the terms more often and worse than regular people who were removed from the platform. Thousands of regular people kicked off for violating the terms and it's Donald Fucking Trump and Parler that gets folks in an uproar? Over things that happen all the time? By long standing service agreements? What?