5 ms·

What they quote is the tweet “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” That's what he got banned for? I don't

What they quote is the tweet “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” That's what he got banned for? I don't have all the details, but it sure looks similar to the autoritarian governments and police forces locking people up because "they know they meant it". There is no appeal to violence in that tweet. Just because some nutjob can interpret anything like an appeal, doesn't mean it's an appeal. That was literally 1 of two tweets that god him banned, the first just describing a generic Trump tirade about his supporters. How can anyone honestly think this is democratic behavior to ban someone over two tweets that have no appeal to violence? I don't care about pro-trump or anti-trump, but this is political censorship.

mkl 6y ago
I suggest you read Twitter's whole article. It explains, and it's not what you think.
- caffeine 6y ago
  I read Twitter's whole article, and it seems to be exactly what GP thinks. The article is full of weasel words like "can be interpreted as" or "could be taken to mean". It does not point to any single actual example of inciting violence.
- notatrumper 6y ago
  What do you mean? What does it explain? It literally says they interpreted those sentences as incitement to violence?
alkonaut 6y ago
> That was literally 1 of two tweets that god him banned > two tweets A huge number of commenters here said the obvious "yes, quoting selected tweets was unfortunate when it was clearly not those particular tweets alone that was the cause". That's still true. It was useless messaging. Ignore the quoted tweets and read the rest. Or read them as (poor) examples only. There is zero way that the message from Twitter should be interpreted literally as "these two tweets only are what caused Trump to be banned". Anyone who thinks that obviously doesn't interpret their message in a charitable way.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  I strongly believe the goal post of online censorship should be incitement of violence or obvious hatespeech. The rest will always be open to interpretation, that will depend on the biases of the censors. It seems to me this is the case here. There is nothing in his (other) tweets that incites violence. Or can you show anything? Can they do it? After all the criticism they received, they still can't produce a IoV tweets as evidence? This does not look questionable to you? A question I have is - why am I even asked to be reading twitter's thoughts about a matter, instead of actual tweets or things that the account wrote? Who is twitter? Why should I care about their opinion, who gave them right to affect opinion? Why are they supposed to have the moral authority to decipher complex situations for me and tell me how I should understand one message or another? Who elected them? What was the democratic process behind it? It is these questions that make the situation real shady, not the two tweets.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Who is Twitter? They own and operate Twitter, and are the final arbiters for what is allowed on Twitter.
    - ButtSpark69 6y ago
      You could make a decent argument that twitter and the other social giants have more real power than most countries' governments on this planet. The whole reason we think governments shouldn't censer speech is specifically because they are so powerful, and while you may like who's in power today, good luck trying to keep it that way.
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        Which is exactly the reason why Twitter should be allowed to set it's own moderation rules. Who else is going to tell Twitter what they can and cannot moderate? The only other people who can is the government and then you have a situation where the government is now controlling speech. The ironic thing about this situation is that Twitter exercising their own judgement on what can and cannot be hosted on their platform is actually a good thing for the demonstration of independence of social platforms from government control.

mkl 6y ago

I suggest you read Twitter's whole article. It explains, and it's not what you think.

caffeine 6y ago
I read Twitter's whole article, and it seems to be exactly what GP thinks. The article is full of weasel words like "can be interpreted as" or "could be taken to mean". It does not point to any single actual example of inciting violence.
notatrumper 6y ago
What do you mean? What does it explain? It literally says they interpreted those sentences as incitement to violence?

alkonaut 6y ago

> That was literally 1 of two tweets that god him banned > two tweets A huge number of commenters here said the obvious "yes, quoting selected tweets was unfortunate when it was clearly not those particular tweets alone that was the cause". That's still true. It was useless messaging. Ignore the quoted tweets and read the rest. Or read them as (poor) examples only. There is zero way that the message from Twitter should be interpreted literally as "these two tweets only are what caused Trump to be banned". Anyone who thinks that obviously doesn't interpret their message in a charitable way.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
I strongly believe the goal post of online censorship should be incitement of violence or obvious hatespeech. The rest will always be open to interpretation, that will depend on the biases of the censors. It seems to me this is the case here. There is nothing in his (other) tweets that incites violence. Or can you show anything? Can they do it? After all the criticism they received, they still can't produce a IoV tweets as evidence? This does not look questionable to you? A question I have is - why am I even asked to be reading twitter's thoughts about a matter, instead of actual tweets or things that the account wrote? Who is twitter? Why should I care about their opinion, who gave them right to affect opinion? Why are they supposed to have the moral authority to decipher complex situations for me and tell me how I should understand one message or another? Who elected them? What was the democratic process behind it? It is these questions that make the situation real shady, not the two tweets.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Who is Twitter? They own and operate Twitter, and are the final arbiters for what is allowed on Twitter.
  - ButtSpark69 6y ago
    You could make a decent argument that twitter and the other social giants have more real power than most countries' governments on this planet. The whole reason we think governments shouldn't censer speech is specifically because they are so powerful, and while you may like who's in power today, good luck trying to keep it that way.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      Which is exactly the reason why Twitter should be allowed to set it's own moderation rules. Who else is going to tell Twitter what they can and cannot moderate? The only other people who can is the government and then you have a situation where the government is now controlling speech. The ironic thing about this situation is that Twitter exercising their own judgement on what can and cannot be hosted on their platform is actually a good thing for the demonstration of independence of social platforms from government control.