4 ms·

Should Twitter have banned Trump?

3 points by asplake 6y ago

user-the-name 6y ago
Yes, except much earlier than this.
rvz 6y ago
Anyone who repeatedly violates Twitter's ToS should be banned off of Twitter. Including Trump, Khomenei, the elected officials who incited violence with those who organised the summer riots / unrest and looting last year and anyone who participated in storming the Capitol. Therefore, Trump should have been banned along time ago. Alongside others as well. Twitter just didn't have the guts to applying their own rules consistently.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > those who organised the summer riots Banning the police from Twitter seems a bit extreme.
raxxorrax 6y ago
No, because people can judge his statements themselves. Some allege he did incite violence, which could be true, but it is disputable. Liable are primarily those that act. You could also say that the narrative of Russian interference had an impact on people, or the racial tensions, which were heated up by media and politicians and did result in violence as well. So again here are two completely different standards applied. To answer the questions: 1.) Doing something illegal probably. 2.) I am not a libertarian and in favor of strong social policies and not someone that believes FFA does work at all. With an exception to speech of course. Speech and thoughts are your own. I don't like vulgarity, but I have a low opinion on people that penalize others because of it. I am not in favor of regulation, I would ban those that ask to ban others. If you do not like what you read, read something else. 3.) Same question as 2. - Government regulation probably doesn't work. 4.) The end-result for governments setting the rules would basically be that few things controversial can be said and people would wander off to other platforms where they can speak their mind and have fun without big brother behind their backs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
totalZero 6y ago
Twitter should have banned Trump once it became clear that he had lost the election, if not much earlier. His Twitter account serves no unique public benefit; he is the one person in the country who could make a public statement for immediate dissemination on national television any day of the week. Twitter did not need to serve as the petri dish wherein Trump's pustulence festers and spreads. They did it for the financial benefits. > "5. Why not ban the CCP or Ayatollah Khomenei or many of the other odious and even genocidal characters who populate Twitter today? This tweet still stands: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562." Well...why not? Ban 'em! > "6. This summer, Slate and many other media organizations condoned violence in explicit terms. Murders are in fact up a great deal this year. Given that incitement to violence is manifestly acceptable to Twitter in many cases, can you articulate the relevant standard in more detail?" This is a train of spurious claims. Slate wouldn't agree that it explicitly condoned violence, and the suggestion of a causal link between Slate/others and murders is absolutely baseless. The false equivalency between public resistance to police murder and overt insurrection is not worthy of serious consideration. Twitter would not say that it manifestly accepts incitement to violence in any case, and the question at the end is so vague as to be meaningless.

3 points by asplake 6y ago

Yes, except much earlier than this.

rvz 6y ago

Anyone who repeatedly violates Twitter's ToS should be banned off of Twitter. Including Trump, Khomenei, the elected officials who incited violence with those who organised the summer riots / unrest and looting last year and anyone who participated in storming the Capitol. Therefore, Trump should have been banned along time ago. Alongside others as well. Twitter just didn't have the guts to applying their own rules consistently.

user-the-name 6y ago
> those who organised the summer riots Banning the police from Twitter seems a bit extreme.

raxxorrax 6y ago

No, because people can judge his statements themselves. Some allege he did incite violence, which could be true, but it is disputable. Liable are primarily those that act. You could also say that the narrative of Russian interference had an impact on people, or the racial tensions, which were heated up by media and politicians and did result in violence as well. So again here are two completely different standards applied. To answer the questions: 1.) Doing something illegal probably. 2.) I am not a libertarian and in favor of strong social policies and not someone that believes FFA does work at all. With an exception to speech of course. Speech and thoughts are your own. I don't like vulgarity, but I have a low opinion on people that penalize others because of it. I am not in favor of regulation, I would ban those that ask to ban others. If you do not like what you read, read something else. 3.) Same question as 2. - Government regulation probably doesn't work. 4.) The end-result for governments setting the rules would basically be that few things controversial can be said and people would wander off to other platforms where they can speak their mind and have fun without big brother behind their backs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

totalZero 6y ago

Twitter should have banned Trump once it became clear that he had lost the election, if not much earlier. His Twitter account serves no unique public benefit; he is the one person in the country who could make a public statement for immediate dissemination on national television any day of the week. Twitter did not need to serve as the petri dish wherein Trump's pustulence festers and spreads. They did it for the financial benefits. > "5. Why not ban the CCP or Ayatollah Khomenei or many of the other odious and even genocidal characters who populate Twitter today? This tweet still stands: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562." Well...why not? Ban 'em! > "6. This summer, Slate and many other media organizations condoned violence in explicit terms. Murders are in fact up a great deal this year. Given that incitement to violence is manifestly acceptable to Twitter in many cases, can you articulate the relevant standard in more detail?" This is a train of spurious claims. Slate wouldn't agree that it explicitly condoned violence, and the suggestion of a causal link between Slate/others and murders is absolutely baseless. The false equivalency between public resistance to police murder and overt insurrection is not worthy of serious consideration. Twitter would not say that it manifestly accepts incitement to violence in any case, and the question at the end is so vague as to be meaningless.