4 ms·

They also, on Jan 6th, deleted Trump posts and video post telling people to not be violent and unlawful and disorderly, and saying anyone doing otherwise will b

They also, on Jan 6th, deleted Trump posts and video post telling people to not be violent and unlawful and disorderly, and saying anyone doing otherwise will be brought to swift justice, right before banning him, all so they could feed the narrative that Trump wanted people to invade the Capitol.

ceejayoz 6y ago
That video included the statements "We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side." and "This was a fraudulent election..." They were removed for being a repeat violation of the conduct he'd already been warned to avoid.
- bellyfullofbac 6y ago
  I share your view of the situation, but it is fucking frustrating that "the other side" including the person you replied to probably will keep seeing it the way he described, even after you writing this explanation...
  - luxuryballs 6y ago
    I’m the person, and I don’t see these things as one or the other. The election results questioning thing is a totally different topic but it doesn’t change the fact that people literally attempted to claim Trump wanted an insurrection and Twitter could have continued to flag things with their “election results” blurb rather than pulling the entire post. I think we all can see what the common denominator is here... why not allow both the condemning of violence and lawlessness as well as the ability to “trust but verify” on election results? Mitt Romney said “an audit won’t satisfy them only telling them the truth will” only nobody to this day even knows the truth yet, the best we can say is that we aren’t sure, and that leaves it open for either side to say they are sure about their angle.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Describing "This was a fraudulent election" as "trust but verify" is incredibly disingenuous.
      - luxuryballs 6y ago
        Why? I just removed the Trump salesmanship hyperbole from the statement, the meaning is the same.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        In what world is "this election results were fraudulent" interpretable as "we should trust but verify the election results"? Alleging fraud is an explicit lack of trust.
        luxuryballs 6y ago
        I mean he’s just saying what he believes, he could be very well be right, we don’t know. In my opinion a complete lack of trust should be the default stance when it comes to voting, we should ideally not have to trust anyone or anything for this.
        rOOb85 6y ago
        > I mean he’s just saying what he believes, he could be very well be right, we don’t know. Except he is NOT right and we DO know. The election was NOT rigged or stolen from him. He lost. Plain and simple.
        luxuryballs 6y ago
        Oh? How do you know? We’re still waiting on ballot audits in 4 counties, until they actually happen NOBODY knows. Saying otherwise is just dishonest.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
  - splithalf 6y ago
    There is a lot of whataboutism in society lately. The what about in this case are the many posts claiming the 2016 election was fraudulent, stolen, etc... While I personally understand the differences (the 2016 election really was stolen, but the 2020 election was not), I also understand why others do not agree and instead see both claims of election fraud as sour grapes, consistent with similar claims of election fraud from every close election in American politics in the past century. Dangling chads?
    - makomk 6y ago
      The claims about the 2016 election being stolen had no more factual basis than the claims about the 2020 election. Amazingly, there was even a supposed proof that the 2016 election was stolen circulating where, if you understood why the supposed election theft couldn't have worked as advertised, it was really obvious that the author knew this too and was pushing a narrative he knew was bullshit. The real difference is that the mainstream press and big tech supports the party that won in 2020 but opposes the one that won in 2016, so the idea of election theft was lent credibility by them for one and discredited for the other in ways completely unfounded in actual evidence.
      - splithalf 6y ago
        I think some of what you say is widely debated but it is disappointing that those who advocated better election security after 2016 did a 360 in 2020 and decided the same systems are now infallible. Election security shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Wholly suboptimal.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  Well there you go. Censorship.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Sure. If I stand in a hotel lobby screaming the N-word they're gonna kick me out for that, too, and be well within their rights. Private organizations have long had "follow our rules or be asked/told to leave" policies.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why is it wrong to allege that the election is stolen or fraudulent? The Democrats have done that repeatedly - 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore), 2004, and 2016 (https://www.allsides.com/blog/past-electoral-college-vote-objections-democrats-explained https://www.allsides.com/blog/past-electoral-college-vote-ob...). They even did it this very election cycle (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980023007/democrats-reviewing-whether-to-overturn-a-certified-iowa-u-s-house-election https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980023007/democrats-reviewing...). It is completely legitimate to challenge election results. It is legal, and a part of our political process. It shouldn't be surprising either - it's hard to trust an election process that made a hasty and unplanned switch to mail-in voting, that altered the rules of the election arbitrarily (example https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules...), etc. And with Democrats repeatedly pushing back on very reasonable voter ID laws, it seems that one side really does not want to make elections secure and instead leave security gaps open, which fuels those concerns further. We should all want a maximally-secure election process because it is the most fundamental piece of our political system. Keep in mind, I am saying this as someone who believes that the amount of fraudulence alleged would not alter election outcomes. Regardless, it's important for our political process to play out in a trustworthy, transparent, and censorship-free way. Your phrasing of "violation of the conduct" tries to lend legitimacy to Twitter's actions. In reality Twitter simply engaged in one-sided censorship, basically providing election and campaign help to the Democrats because they (their executives, their employees) are politically biased.

ceejayoz 6y ago

That video included the statements "We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side." and "This was a fraudulent election..." They were removed for being a repeat violation of the conduct he'd already been warned to avoid.

bellyfullofbac 6y ago
I share your view of the situation, but it is fucking frustrating that "the other side" including the person you replied to probably will keep seeing it the way he described, even after you writing this explanation...
- luxuryballs 6y ago
  I’m the person, and I don’t see these things as one or the other. The election results questioning thing is a totally different topic but it doesn’t change the fact that people literally attempted to claim Trump wanted an insurrection and Twitter could have continued to flag things with their “election results” blurb rather than pulling the entire post. I think we all can see what the common denominator is here... why not allow both the condemning of violence and lawlessness as well as the ability to “trust but verify” on election results? Mitt Romney said “an audit won’t satisfy them only telling them the truth will” only nobody to this day even knows the truth yet, the best we can say is that we aren’t sure, and that leaves it open for either side to say they are sure about their angle.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Describing "This was a fraudulent election" as "trust but verify" is incredibly disingenuous.
    - luxuryballs 6y ago
      Why? I just removed the Trump salesmanship hyperbole from the statement, the meaning is the same.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        In what world is "this election results were fraudulent" interpretable as "we should trust but verify the election results"? Alleging fraud is an explicit lack of trust.
        luxuryballs 6y ago
        I mean he’s just saying what he believes, he could be very well be right, we don’t know. In my opinion a complete lack of trust should be the default stance when it comes to voting, we should ideally not have to trust anyone or anything for this.
        rOOb85 6y ago
        > I mean he’s just saying what he believes, he could be very well be right, we don’t know. Except he is NOT right and we DO know. The election was NOT rigged or stolen from him. He lost. Plain and simple.
        luxuryballs 6y ago
        Oh? How do you know? We’re still waiting on ballot audits in 4 counties, until they actually happen NOBODY knows. Saying otherwise is just dishonest.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
- splithalf 6y ago
  There is a lot of whataboutism in society lately. The what about in this case are the many posts claiming the 2016 election was fraudulent, stolen, etc... While I personally understand the differences (the 2016 election really was stolen, but the 2020 election was not), I also understand why others do not agree and instead see both claims of election fraud as sour grapes, consistent with similar claims of election fraud from every close election in American politics in the past century. Dangling chads?
  - makomk 6y ago
    The claims about the 2016 election being stolen had no more factual basis than the claims about the 2020 election. Amazingly, there was even a supposed proof that the 2016 election was stolen circulating where, if you understood why the supposed election theft couldn't have worked as advertised, it was really obvious that the author knew this too and was pushing a narrative he knew was bullshit. The real difference is that the mainstream press and big tech supports the party that won in 2020 but opposes the one that won in 2016, so the idea of election theft was lent credibility by them for one and discredited for the other in ways completely unfounded in actual evidence.
    - splithalf 6y ago
      I think some of what you say is widely debated but it is disappointing that those who advocated better election security after 2016 did a 360 in 2020 and decided the same systems are now infallible. Election security shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Wholly suboptimal.
SamReidHughes 6y ago
Well there you go. Censorship.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Sure. If I stand in a hotel lobby screaming the N-word they're gonna kick me out for that, too, and be well within their rights. Private organizations have long had "follow our rules or be asked/told to leave" policies.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Why is it wrong to allege that the election is stolen or fraudulent? The Democrats have done that repeatedly - 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore), 2004, and 2016 (https://www.allsides.com/blog/past-electoral-college-vote-objections-democrats-explained https://www.allsides.com/blog/past-electoral-college-vote-ob...). They even did it this very election cycle (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980023007/democrats-reviewing-whether-to-overturn-a-certified-iowa-u-s-house-election https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/980023007/democrats-reviewing...). It is completely legitimate to challenge election results. It is legal, and a part of our political process. It shouldn't be surprising either - it's hard to trust an election process that made a hasty and unplanned switch to mail-in voting, that altered the rules of the election arbitrarily (example https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules...), etc. And with Democrats repeatedly pushing back on very reasonable voter ID laws, it seems that one side really does not want to make elections secure and instead leave security gaps open, which fuels those concerns further. We should all want a maximally-secure election process because it is the most fundamental piece of our political system. Keep in mind, I am saying this as someone who believes that the amount of fraudulence alleged would not alter election outcomes. Regardless, it's important for our political process to play out in a trustworthy, transparent, and censorship-free way. Your phrasing of "violation of the conduct" tries to lend legitimacy to Twitter's actions. In reality Twitter simply engaged in one-sided censorship, basically providing election and campaign help to the Democrats because they (their executives, their employees) are politically biased.