4 ms·

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics 1. The second - and third, for that matter

> they've silenced the second-most voted for President in American history, because he isn't their brand of politics 1. The second - and third, for that matter - most voted for President is Obama (69.5 and 65.9M votes). Trump is the fourth (62.9M votes)[1]. 2. He was not banned because he wasn’t ‘their brand of politics’, he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms. You can certainly argue Twitter and Facebook had - and have - a very inconsistent enforcement approach for those policies. But that’s not what you are saying. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

Alupis 5y ago
The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1] Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public. Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions. For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)
  - Alupis 5y ago
    Well, just like anything can be securities fraud, anything can be a political lie. It just depends on perspective.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Right, but Trump wasn't suspended for political lying. He was suspended for inciting violence. Political lying is not a violation of the terms of service, so far as I am aware.
      - Alupis 5y ago
        And the other side can point to the congressional hearings that didn't conclude he directly incited any violence. It's a tit-for-tat sort of thing, which is incredibly dangerous when we're talking about how the general public is "allowed" to consume information.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        My point, which you continually seem to miss or ignore, is this: Trump said things that could be construed as violating terms of service (even though congressional hearings did not conclude that he did incite violence). And so we're in a he said/she said situation - was it incitement to violence, or not? But even if you don't agree, you could see that Twitter could consider it incitement to violence without being completely insane or completely political. Biden has not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything that could sanely be considered incitement to violence. Banning him would not be in the same category as banning Trump. It would be much more blatantly political, because the excuse would be much more transparent.
        Alupis 5y ago
        Has Biden not violated Facebook and Twitters TOS when he deliberately continues his messaging about the Georgia voting laws? If you spend 2 minutes reading the thing, you'll see his claims are false at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Are we to just ban politics from these platforms wholesale?
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Deliberate misinformation != incitement to violence. What part of that is so hard to understand? Is lying against Twitter's TOS? If so, then you have a sensible point. But I kind of doubt that it is...
AzzieElbab 5y ago
"he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms" So technically Trump should be un-banned after claims of incitement were contested and disproved in congress, right?
- thomaslangston 5y ago
  "There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day." -Mitch McConnell
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    You and I and McConnell might agree, but the congress didnt. Moreover, Trump was calling for everyone to chill when he got banned, which to me indicates really bad risk management on behalf of twitter and fb. They risked further escalation to avoid responsibility.
    - res0nat0r 5y ago
      Congress' opinion didn't matter in this case, Twitters did, and since its their TOS they said he violated, they were free to kick him off their website.
    - gh-throw 5y ago
      Ever read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? There’s a certain speech you might find enlightening if you think Trump was trying to cool things off with those tweets.

Alupis 5y ago

The guy got 74,216,154 votes in 2020. The second most votes in American History, only outclassed by the current President with 81,268,924 votes.[1] Your other point is based on your own personal political biases, which just furthers my point about these platforms controlling the release of information (or disinformation) to the general public. Just imagine if Twitter was a Right-Wing organization, and decided to silence the current President. How would that change this discussion? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
That probably would change the current discussion, yes. An amazing number of people would flip positions. For that to happen, though, the current president would have to do something that was at least colorable as a violation of terms and services. I haven't heard even right-wingers claim that this is so, so far. (But maybe I just haven't heard, not being one who listens to those circles.)
- Alupis 5y ago
  Well, just like anything can be securities fraud, anything can be a political lie. It just depends on perspective.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Right, but Trump wasn't suspended for political lying. He was suspended for inciting violence. Political lying is not a violation of the terms of service, so far as I am aware.
    - Alupis 5y ago
      And the other side can point to the congressional hearings that didn't conclude he directly incited any violence. It's a tit-for-tat sort of thing, which is incredibly dangerous when we're talking about how the general public is "allowed" to consume information.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        My point, which you continually seem to miss or ignore, is this: Trump said things that could be construed as violating terms of service (even though congressional hearings did not conclude that he did incite violence). And so we're in a he said/she said situation - was it incitement to violence, or not? But even if you don't agree, you could see that Twitter could consider it incitement to violence without being completely insane or completely political. Biden has not, to the best of my knowledge, said anything that could sanely be considered incitement to violence. Banning him would not be in the same category as banning Trump. It would be much more blatantly political, because the excuse would be much more transparent.
        Alupis 5y ago
        Has Biden not violated Facebook and Twitters TOS when he deliberately continues his messaging about the Georgia voting laws? If you spend 2 minutes reading the thing, you'll see his claims are false at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Are we to just ban politics from these platforms wholesale?
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Deliberate misinformation != incitement to violence. What part of that is so hard to understand? Is lying against Twitter's TOS? If so, then you have a sensible point. But I kind of doubt that it is...

AzzieElbab 5y ago

"he was banned for inciting violence against the terms of those platforms" So technically Trump should be un-banned after claims of incitement were contested and disproved in congress, right?

thomaslangston 5y ago
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day." -Mitch McConnell
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  You and I and McConnell might agree, but the congress didnt. Moreover, Trump was calling for everyone to chill when he got banned, which to me indicates really bad risk management on behalf of twitter and fb. They risked further escalation to avoid responsibility.
  - res0nat0r 5y ago
    Congress' opinion didn't matter in this case, Twitters did, and since its their TOS they said he violated, they were free to kick him off their website.
  - gh-throw 5y ago
    Ever read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? There’s a certain speech you might find enlightening if you think Trump was trying to cool things off with those tweets.