6 ms·

Ok, so it looks like the two tweets were: "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GI

Ok, so it looks like the two tweets were: "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 fail to see the issue with these tweets. He is not planning to attend an inauguration because he will not be inaugurated President? Is that such a huge problem? Is it even something that the incoming President was requesting? And what is the issue with the other tweet? This is a bizarre hill that Twitter chose to spend 10% of their market cap on. It seems like there must have been something else that they could have picked that would have made more sense.

ncallaway 6y ago
I think it's some of the following factors: - 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. > He is not planning to attend an inauguration because he will not be inaugurated President? Is that such a huge problem? It's pretty significant as it hasn't happened since 1869.
- imgabe 6y ago
  The fact that he's being censored based on how some people interpreted what he said is troubling. John Lennon was murdered because of how someone interpreted Catcher In the Rye. Do we need to lock up Salinger for inciting violence too?
  - louthy 6y ago
    Propaganda doesn’t need to be explicit; it’s clear the intent of these messages, just like the veiled messaging in his incitement speech. It’s clear that once something like a violent insurrection happens the companies previously giving a platform to the one who incited the insurrection are going to give a lot less leeway on anything he says. Seems odd that this is seemingly hard to understand. If the violence didn’t happen, and he wrote those two tweets he’d still be on Twitter. But it did happen and that’s changed the game
    - imgabe 6y ago
      You can say anything is a coded message and claim it means whatever you want. The tweet that prompted the initial ban literally said "go home and be peaceful". That is supposed to be an incitement to violence? Lots of violence happened during the protests this summer too. Should we assume that everyone tweeting about being peaceful then was also sending coded messages supporting the violence? Are we really going to go with the logic that violence occurred, therefore anything tweeted prior to the violence was an incitement to the violence? And if it appeared to say the opposite of that, then it was actually a coded message that means whatever is politically convenient for us to have it mean?
      - louthy 6y ago
        You can keep claiming it’s one tweet if you like, but you know this is disingenuous. It’s 1 tweet + 4 years of destabilising lies + 1 incitement to insurrection Propaganda over the ages has been studied very closely, there are known techniques. His incitement speech was a textbook example [1]. Why on earth would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt? He’s a wannabe tyrant. [1] https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680 https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680 - A good deep dive on his incitement speech
timzentu 6y ago
OK then add this to context, they had also just determined that pipe bombs had been located in 4 places (Capital area, RNC Headquarters , DNC Headquarters, and in a pickup truck bed). So if someone who was revered and you felt wrong enough to stage a potential coup or insurgence for wasn't going to be some place and still hadn't condemned your behavior, yet those who were permitted to do the wrong (in the mind of the insurgence) you were just given a green light and location. That is where it breaks down. He was also stating he was moving platforms, so then those who were prepared to perpetrate the violence would know where they could celebrate it with the person they felt had been wronged. Now personally I took more umbrage with the fact that he hadn't been kicked off previously, I personally Don't think that the previous comments should have ever been allowed to be made on the platform since he should have been removed for TOS violations. Also for those asking how this should impact businesses going forward, a smart company should have a mitigation plan in place for any similar issue. It would have been strange if this was the first occurrence, but just look back a few years for 8Chan. This isn't the first time, especially for an application that a bunch of the users had used since QAnon had gone there previously.
creato 6y ago
If you insist on trying to identify a handful of tweets that justify this, you're going to be disappointed. The problem is the totality of his behavior. Watch the first 20 minutes of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4
edbob 6y ago
> They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form It comes off like this statement is what big tech really has a problem with.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  I don’t think you can really pick this part the way you are approaching it. There were many many other tweets that added up to this, and Twitter really didn’t decide that any particular tweet was a problem until people chose to be violent after reading them.
  - edbob 6y ago
    I'm aware of the wider context, and I didn't mean that in complete seriousness. I was just pointing out the extremely one-sided bias on display. We've had our cities burned down and dozens of people murdered in the name of leftist causes, and all we get is denial that the violence is even happening, or baseless claims that it's all committed by alt righters who somehow flourish in zones controlled by violent leftists. CHAZ de facto seceded from the Union, and Portland was borderline in that respect. While the riot in the Capitol was very serious and reprehensible, it was not even remotely a coup and the overall level of harm was low compared to the violent harm constantly caused by and celebrated by the left all last year. It's abundantly clear that violence is good and healthy as long as it's committed by the left, and it's okay to stamp out groups that find that abhorrent. The tech giants do not have the slightest problem with violence. They have a problem with their political opponents. This is a political power grab that is affecting thousands of people who have not committed any crime. I'm all for prosecuting people and groups that have actually committed violence. In the court system, not by unaccountable decrees from the billionaire ruling class, and not with collateral damage involving thousands of innocent people.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      I think a lot of what you’re saying is not true. I say this living in Seattle. Nobody burned down my city. Chaz was pretty interesting; I visited and talked to people there. It was not a threat to the Union. :) The things you seem to think are abundantly clear are not clear to people who lived through the events you’re hearing about.

ncallaway 6y ago

I think it's some of the following factors: - 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. > He is not planning to attend an inauguration because he will not be inaugurated President? Is that such a huge problem? It's pretty significant as it hasn't happened since 1869.

imgabe 6y ago
The fact that he's being censored based on how some people interpreted what he said is troubling. John Lennon was murdered because of how someone interpreted Catcher In the Rye. Do we need to lock up Salinger for inciting violence too?
- louthy 6y ago
  Propaganda doesn’t need to be explicit; it’s clear the intent of these messages, just like the veiled messaging in his incitement speech. It’s clear that once something like a violent insurrection happens the companies previously giving a platform to the one who incited the insurrection are going to give a lot less leeway on anything he says. Seems odd that this is seemingly hard to understand. If the violence didn’t happen, and he wrote those two tweets he’d still be on Twitter. But it did happen and that’s changed the game
  - imgabe 6y ago
    You can say anything is a coded message and claim it means whatever you want. The tweet that prompted the initial ban literally said "go home and be peaceful". That is supposed to be an incitement to violence? Lots of violence happened during the protests this summer too. Should we assume that everyone tweeting about being peaceful then was also sending coded messages supporting the violence? Are we really going to go with the logic that violence occurred, therefore anything tweeted prior to the violence was an incitement to the violence? And if it appeared to say the opposite of that, then it was actually a coded message that means whatever is politically convenient for us to have it mean?
    - louthy 6y ago
      You can keep claiming it’s one tweet if you like, but you know this is disingenuous. It’s 1 tweet + 4 years of destabilising lies + 1 incitement to insurrection Propaganda over the ages has been studied very closely, there are known techniques. His incitement speech was a textbook example [1]. Why on earth would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt? He’s a wannabe tyrant. [1] https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680 https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680 - A good deep dive on his incitement speech

timzentu 6y ago

OK then add this to context, they had also just determined that pipe bombs had been located in 4 places (Capital area, RNC Headquarters , DNC Headquarters, and in a pickup truck bed). So if someone who was revered and you felt wrong enough to stage a potential coup or insurgence for wasn't going to be some place and still hadn't condemned your behavior, yet those who were permitted to do the wrong (in the mind of the insurgence) you were just given a green light and location. That is where it breaks down. He was also stating he was moving platforms, so then those who were prepared to perpetrate the violence would know where they could celebrate it with the person they felt had been wronged. Now personally I took more umbrage with the fact that he hadn't been kicked off previously, I personally Don't think that the previous comments should have ever been allowed to be made on the platform since he should have been removed for TOS violations. Also for those asking how this should impact businesses going forward, a smart company should have a mitigation plan in place for any similar issue. It would have been strange if this was the first occurrence, but just look back a few years for 8Chan. This isn't the first time, especially for an application that a bunch of the users had used since QAnon had gone there previously.

creato 6y ago

If you insist on trying to identify a handful of tweets that justify this, you're going to be disappointed. The problem is the totality of his behavior. Watch the first 20 minutes of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4

edbob 6y ago

> They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form It comes off like this statement is what big tech really has a problem with.

Schiendelman 6y ago
I don’t think you can really pick this part the way you are approaching it. There were many many other tweets that added up to this, and Twitter really didn’t decide that any particular tweet was a problem until people chose to be violent after reading them.
- edbob 6y ago
  I'm aware of the wider context, and I didn't mean that in complete seriousness. I was just pointing out the extremely one-sided bias on display. We've had our cities burned down and dozens of people murdered in the name of leftist causes, and all we get is denial that the violence is even happening, or baseless claims that it's all committed by alt righters who somehow flourish in zones controlled by violent leftists. CHAZ de facto seceded from the Union, and Portland was borderline in that respect. While the riot in the Capitol was very serious and reprehensible, it was not even remotely a coup and the overall level of harm was low compared to the violent harm constantly caused by and celebrated by the left all last year. It's abundantly clear that violence is good and healthy as long as it's committed by the left, and it's okay to stamp out groups that find that abhorrent. The tech giants do not have the slightest problem with violence. They have a problem with their political opponents. This is a political power grab that is affecting thousands of people who have not committed any crime. I'm all for prosecuting people and groups that have actually committed violence. In the court system, not by unaccountable decrees from the billionaire ruling class, and not with collateral damage involving thousands of innocent people.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    I think a lot of what you’re saying is not true. I say this living in Seattle. Nobody burned down my city. Chaz was pretty interesting; I visited and talked to people there. It was not a threat to the Union. :) The things you seem to think are abundantly clear are not clear to people who lived through the events you’re hearing about.