5 ms·

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 s

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
      - drewmol 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. >Why on earth would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt? OM F*cking God! Sorry for the outburst HN! He's the democratically elected commander in chief of the modern free world - like it or not. We comment here to hear other people's comments back. Read the guidelines. Trump is not subject to HN guidelines unless he comments on here, but Twitter is struggling to maintain user trust in their convictions following an unbelievable narative, their reaction to it, among others phenomenon. Side note: 'Users' are not friends nor loyalists.
        louthy 6y ago
- frombody 6y ago
  A lot of people still argue that Charles Manson should have been freed as well. I mean it's not like the guy ever killed anyone. /s
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > Do we need to lock up Salinger for inciting violence too? This is patently disingenuous. Twitter didn't jail the President for inciting violence. They said he wasn't allowed to Tweet anymore. Could the publisher of Catcher in the Rye have decided to stop publishing it based on that? Yes, they could. You're also willfully ignoring the fact that _just before_ those tweets the President had incited a violent insurrection that attacked Congress and then praised them saying: "we love you" and "you're special". As I said before, we don't have to be blind to the prior context. This reductionist thinking that we must take these two tweets entirely on their own and devoid of context isn't something I'm going to participate in.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    > You're also willfully ignoring the fact that _just before_ those tweets the President had incited a violent insurrection And we have a justice system to deal with insurrectionists and we have a democratic process with our elected representatives to remove leaders from office. This involves due process and respecting rights honed over 200 years of jurisprudence. It's not done in a corporate backroom by a couple executives with zero public accountability. Would you be equally supportive if Twitter had deployed a private army of mercenaries to police the Capitol? What's happening here is the digital equivalent. You're busy thanking them because you support what they did. Some of us are stepping back and asking the question: wait, who controls these soldiers and what checks and balances are there on their power to police us? It turns out Twitter owns them and the checks and balances are none. If that doesn't concern you then you're missing the big picture.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > Would you be equally supportive if Twitter had deployed a private army of mercenaries to police the Capitol? I'm done with this conversation as it doesn't seem to be productive or in good faith.

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
    - drewmol 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. >Why on earth would anyone give him the benefit of the doubt? OM F*cking God! Sorry for the outburst HN! He's the democratically elected commander in chief of the modern free world - like it or not. We comment here to hear other people's comments back. Read the guidelines. Trump is not subject to HN guidelines unless he comments on here, but Twitter is struggling to maintain user trust in their convictions following an unbelievable narative, their reaction to it, among others phenomenon. Side note: 'Users' are not friends nor loyalists.
      - louthy 6y ago
frombody 6y ago
A lot of people still argue that Charles Manson should have been freed as well. I mean it's not like the guy ever killed anyone. /s
ncallaway 6y ago
> Do we need to lock up Salinger for inciting violence too? This is patently disingenuous. Twitter didn't jail the President for inciting violence. They said he wasn't allowed to Tweet anymore. Could the publisher of Catcher in the Rye have decided to stop publishing it based on that? Yes, they could. You're also willfully ignoring the fact that _just before_ those tweets the President had incited a violent insurrection that attacked Congress and then praised them saying: "we love you" and "you're special". As I said before, we don't have to be blind to the prior context. This reductionist thinking that we must take these two tweets entirely on their own and devoid of context isn't something I'm going to participate in.
- imgabe 6y ago
  > You're also willfully ignoring the fact that _just before_ those tweets the President had incited a violent insurrection And we have a justice system to deal with insurrectionists and we have a democratic process with our elected representatives to remove leaders from office. This involves due process and respecting rights honed over 200 years of jurisprudence. It's not done in a corporate backroom by a couple executives with zero public accountability. Would you be equally supportive if Twitter had deployed a private army of mercenaries to police the Capitol? What's happening here is the digital equivalent. You're busy thanking them because you support what they did. Some of us are stepping back and asking the question: wait, who controls these soldiers and what checks and balances are there on their power to police us? It turns out Twitter owns them and the checks and balances are none. If that doesn't concern you then you're missing the big picture.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > Would you be equally supportive if Twitter had deployed a private army of mercenaries to police the Capitol? I'm done with this conversation as it doesn't seem to be productive or in good faith.