6 ms·

It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government and people follow through with it, you get shut down. It's not like any o

It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government and people follow through with it, you get shut down. It's not like any of these platforms had a choice given Trump's violent rhetoric and history of lying.

throwawaysea 6y ago
Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent? Twitter did not name a single tweet or written or spoken sentence from Trump where he advocated for violence in their blog post where they announced the ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...). I do agree Trump has a huge history of lying, and was continuing to lie with his claims about the election. However, I find the claim that Trump "incited" the riot to be unfounded and am shocked to see everyone use that word so casually. If and when this goes to court, I guarantee they will not be able to prove that Trump incited a violent riot simply because the evidence does not support it. Remember, there were tens of thousands of attendees in DC in support of Trump, across several separate events. To my knowledge, all these events had applied for permits and were granted them, allowing the city and other agencies (like National Park Service) to plan their response and presence. At the capitol, a few hundred people came onto the capitol grounds. Of those, an even smaller subset engaged in theft, vandalism, and other violence. But the vast majority of people that came to DC this last week for Trump did not engage in violence. So how can it be claimed that Trump incited violence? He made false claims about the election, and a small number of people took those claims and used it as justification for criminality. But to me that seems like the fault of those who participated and not really a justification for banning Trump.
- oivey 6y ago
  The percentage of people who became rioters is irrelevant. Trump talked about marching to the Capitol building and “showing strength” at the rally. His employee, Giuliani, was making comments about hand to hand combat at the rally. Before the rally, he commented that it was going to be a wild day. During the riot, he praised the rioters by referring to them fondly as special people. I don’t think even this rundown does complete justice as to what Trump did. In the context of a criminal trial, Trump could claim ignorance of what his actions meant. I think that would be a hard sell considering he’s a professional politician and the President of the United States. In the context of an impeachment trial, I don’t think claims of ignorance could hold. Even allowing it, that level of cluelessness and recklessness still qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.
- Chazprime 6y ago
  > Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent? Does he have to use rhetoric specifically calling for violence in order to justify the banning? At the rally beforehand he said "we can't let this happen", are you surprised at the outcome? What the leader of the country says and how they say it matters. He doesn't need to specifically instruct them to overthrow the government... he's been fueling the fire for a long time now suggesting the election was rigged. While it's an obvious lie, because of who he is some people are going to believe him lie or not... remember the people who ingested fish tank cleaner?
- reuben_scratton 6y ago
  Well quite. You'd think for all the screeching of "incitement" the news coverage would be able to find one 5 second clip or tweet or something where he'd actually done it. It beggars belief how low journalistic standards have fallen.
  - throwaway80332 6y ago
    protip: they never actually believed anything they were saying, they just want to use the opportunity to criminalize and ban their political opposition
- wilsynet 6y ago
  “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
  - wilsynet 6y ago
    You know, you aren’t going to catch Trump say “please go down there and break in and kill people”. That would be directing violence. But given the context of everything, did he incite violence? You’re saying I’m misinterpreting Trump. Given the situation he’s set up, is it a surprise at all that many others might have interpreted what he said in the same way? If a BLM organizer says “lets go out there and protest peacefully” and then follows up with “but you know that Footlocker on Main and 34th? We definitely shouldn’t burn the place down. But you know, the owners of that place are awful people. We need to show strength. They are evil. But don’t burn it down. But really they’re evil”, I’d say that was inciting violence too.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Please do correct me if I am reading this differently from how you read it. To me, this looks like someone saying "we're going to go protest", which people have said many thousands of times in the last year. It does not advocate for violence or anything illegal there. The last bit where he says "you’ll never take back our country with weakness", seems to be misinterpreted by some - what Trump was saying is that the legislators who weren't challenging the results were being weak, and that to win [the election] you have to show strength. All of this reads to me like very typical motivational bluster that accompanies situations like protests. BLM organizers also use phrasings like "we're going to take back our city" and "show them our power" and so on.
    - wilsynet 6y ago
      To put this quote in context, I’ll also add that before Trump addressed the crowd, Giuliani said "If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we're right a lot of them will go to jail. So let's have trial by combat." Trump asked people to come. He’s spent the last several weeks asserting that the election was stolen. They stole your vote. Saying these people are corrupt and ruining this country. His personal lawyer tells the crowd that they should have trial by combat. Trump says they need march on the Capital and show strength. Be strong. Take back our country. Yeah, that’s incitement.
- throwaway80332 6y ago
  I don't see how what he said or didn't say matters to the question at hand when #f80 male is no good!
dijit 6y ago
> It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government We support people rising up against what we consider bad governments using these platforms, and get quite angry when they’re banned though. (Not picking sides, just trying to understand the nuance)
- pjc50 6y ago
  This is kind of the problem: Twitter will invite a revolution whether your country needs it or not.
- timeon 6y ago
  > nuance Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence. Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way. I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.
- ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
  There’s no overall rule that says people fighting governments is always good. Trump is trying to overturn democracy and create a bad government. The difference is that in one case the people are rising up against their dictator, and the other is a multimillionaire who is angry he lost.
  - dijit 6y ago
    I understand that this is the difference but how can you possibly live with the idea that these platforms are ok to incite revolution/insurrection in only specific circumstances? What’s the criteria? If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms. Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook) I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.
lordnacho 6y ago
It is complicated. Trump was dogwhistling for years before anything was done. We can all agree that "go and kill X" should be stopped, but it's not clear where the line goes. "X is a bad person" could be incitement too, depending on context.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  I think this is the central problem. Companies are overcautious in their assessments because of potential litigation and they also tend to use algorithms for them to save costs, which almost always leads to algorithmic discrimination. In contrast to this, judges are generally able and trained to make such assessments by evaluating the circumstances and the intentions behind speech, and when they err there is a clearly regulated appeals process. So I don't think it's a good idea for companies to be allowed to ban whole apps like Parler or persons like Trump, even though I principally endorse these measures. The wrong mechanisms are behind it. Instead there should be more oversight of corporations and how they make decisions that may massively affect someone's online life (which has become an almost essential part of life for most people). Mere accusations of crimes should not lead to a full-fledged ban. I'm fine with limiting the number of people one can reach, e.g. Twitter disallowing retweets or Facebook sending posts only to closest friends. However, even these measures should be transparent, based on openly published and clear guidelines, and there must be an appeals process with several instances and humans in the loop. Right now, the problem is that individuals and companies have no right of public online representation, and at the same time huge corporations have all the rights to cancel anyone's account without transparency or appeal. That is inherently unjust and will get worse the more important online features become for the rest of your life, e.g. what do employers think when you apply without Facebook account, and so on.
  - rini17 6y ago
    But we also have no right of public presentation on radio nor TV, it's fully up to the station owner. And it wasn't really a problem...or?
    - 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent? Twitter did not name a single tweet or written or spoken sentence from Trump where he advocated for violence in their blog post where they announced the ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...). I do agree Trump has a huge history of lying, and was continuing to lie with his claims about the election. However, I find the claim that Trump "incited" the riot to be unfounded and am shocked to see everyone use that word so casually. If and when this goes to court, I guarantee they will not be able to prove that Trump incited a violent riot simply because the evidence does not support it. Remember, there were tens of thousands of attendees in DC in support of Trump, across several separate events. To my knowledge, all these events had applied for permits and were granted them, allowing the city and other agencies (like National Park Service) to plan their response and presence. At the capitol, a few hundred people came onto the capitol grounds. Of those, an even smaller subset engaged in theft, vandalism, and other violence. But the vast majority of people that came to DC this last week for Trump did not engage in violence. So how can it be claimed that Trump incited violence? He made false claims about the election, and a small number of people took those claims and used it as justification for criminality. But to me that seems like the fault of those who participated and not really a justification for banning Trump.

oivey 6y ago
The percentage of people who became rioters is irrelevant. Trump talked about marching to the Capitol building and “showing strength” at the rally. His employee, Giuliani, was making comments about hand to hand combat at the rally. Before the rally, he commented that it was going to be a wild day. During the riot, he praised the rioters by referring to them fondly as special people. I don’t think even this rundown does complete justice as to what Trump did. In the context of a criminal trial, Trump could claim ignorance of what his actions meant. I think that would be a hard sell considering he’s a professional politician and the President of the United States. In the context of an impeachment trial, I don’t think claims of ignorance could hold. Even allowing it, that level of cluelessness and recklessness still qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.
Chazprime 6y ago
> Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent? Does he have to use rhetoric specifically calling for violence in order to justify the banning? At the rally beforehand he said "we can't let this happen", are you surprised at the outcome? What the leader of the country says and how they say it matters. He doesn't need to specifically instruct them to overthrow the government... he's been fueling the fire for a long time now suggesting the election was rigged. While it's an obvious lie, because of who he is some people are going to believe him lie or not... remember the people who ingested fish tank cleaner?
reuben_scratton 6y ago
Well quite. You'd think for all the screeching of "incitement" the news coverage would be able to find one 5 second clip or tweet or something where he'd actually done it. It beggars belief how low journalistic standards have fallen.
- throwaway80332 6y ago
  protip: they never actually believed anything they were saying, they just want to use the opportunity to criminalize and ban their political opposition
wilsynet 6y ago
“After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
- wilsynet 6y ago
  You know, you aren’t going to catch Trump say “please go down there and break in and kill people”. That would be directing violence. But given the context of everything, did he incite violence? You’re saying I’m misinterpreting Trump. Given the situation he’s set up, is it a surprise at all that many others might have interpreted what he said in the same way? If a BLM organizer says “lets go out there and protest peacefully” and then follows up with “but you know that Footlocker on Main and 34th? We definitely shouldn’t burn the place down. But you know, the owners of that place are awful people. We need to show strength. They are evil. But don’t burn it down. But really they’re evil”, I’d say that was inciting violence too.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Please do correct me if I am reading this differently from how you read it. To me, this looks like someone saying "we're going to go protest", which people have said many thousands of times in the last year. It does not advocate for violence or anything illegal there. The last bit where he says "you’ll never take back our country with weakness", seems to be misinterpreted by some - what Trump was saying is that the legislators who weren't challenging the results were being weak, and that to win [the election] you have to show strength. All of this reads to me like very typical motivational bluster that accompanies situations like protests. BLM organizers also use phrasings like "we're going to take back our city" and "show them our power" and so on.
  - wilsynet 6y ago
    To put this quote in context, I’ll also add that before Trump addressed the crowd, Giuliani said "If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we're right a lot of them will go to jail. So let's have trial by combat." Trump asked people to come. He’s spent the last several weeks asserting that the election was stolen. They stole your vote. Saying these people are corrupt and ruining this country. His personal lawyer tells the crowd that they should have trial by combat. Trump says they need march on the Capital and show strength. Be strong. Take back our country. Yeah, that’s incitement.
throwaway80332 6y ago
I don't see how what he said or didn't say matters to the question at hand when #f80 male is no good!

dijit 6y ago

> It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government We support people rising up against what we consider bad governments using these platforms, and get quite angry when they’re banned though. (Not picking sides, just trying to understand the nuance)

pjc50 6y ago
This is kind of the problem: Twitter will invite a revolution whether your country needs it or not.
timeon 6y ago
> nuance Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence. Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way. I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.
ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
There’s no overall rule that says people fighting governments is always good. Trump is trying to overturn democracy and create a bad government. The difference is that in one case the people are rising up against their dictator, and the other is a multimillionaire who is angry he lost.
- dijit 6y ago
  I understand that this is the difference but how can you possibly live with the idea that these platforms are ok to incite revolution/insurrection in only specific circumstances? What’s the criteria? If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms. Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook) I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.

lordnacho 6y ago

It is complicated. Trump was dogwhistling for years before anything was done. We can all agree that "go and kill X" should be stopped, but it's not clear where the line goes. "X is a bad person" could be incitement too, depending on context.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
I think this is the central problem. Companies are overcautious in their assessments because of potential litigation and they also tend to use algorithms for them to save costs, which almost always leads to algorithmic discrimination. In contrast to this, judges are generally able and trained to make such assessments by evaluating the circumstances and the intentions behind speech, and when they err there is a clearly regulated appeals process. So I don't think it's a good idea for companies to be allowed to ban whole apps like Parler or persons like Trump, even though I principally endorse these measures. The wrong mechanisms are behind it. Instead there should be more oversight of corporations and how they make decisions that may massively affect someone's online life (which has become an almost essential part of life for most people). Mere accusations of crimes should not lead to a full-fledged ban. I'm fine with limiting the number of people one can reach, e.g. Twitter disallowing retweets or Facebook sending posts only to closest friends. However, even these measures should be transparent, based on openly published and clear guidelines, and there must be an appeals process with several instances and humans in the loop. Right now, the problem is that individuals and companies have no right of public online representation, and at the same time huge corporations have all the rights to cancel anyone's account without transparency or appeal. That is inherently unjust and will get worse the more important online features become for the rest of your life, e.g. what do employers think when you apply without Facebook account, and so on.
- rini17 6y ago
  But we also have no right of public presentation on radio nor TV, it's fully up to the station owner. And it wasn't really a problem...or?
  - 6y ago