3 ms·

Damn it Elon, you don’t get stuck in re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure. Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to fina

Damn it Elon, you don’t get stuck in re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure. Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned… and he deserves the ban. Being important and famous doesn’t change the fact he deserves his ban. Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans no matter how justified and appropriate each ban was.

TechBro8615 4y ago
> re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure. If re-litigating the past is pointless… > Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned …then why was his past behavior relevant when banning him for what was allegedly a single action? Also… > Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans That’s the point. Many were not valid.
aeternum 4y ago
It's interesting that Democrats seem to general favor limiting corporate power yet are completely onboard with permanent bans. It's useful to consider how this would have played out if large platforms were present during other parts of history. Many of the speeches given civil rights protesters incited some violence, often not the fault of the orator, but would it have triggered a ban? It's easy to advocate for permanent corporate bans when the people on your side control the company, but will that always be the case? How will your stance change if the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone that posts about a BLM protest if it contains any violence whatsoever?
- archagon 4y ago
  As far as I'm concerned, let a thousand platforms bloom. If the government steps in and prevents that from happening, then we have a problem.
- more_corn 4y ago
  This wasn’t about a side. A lie is a lie is a lie. He got banned for persisting in an objective falsehood. Oh by the way said falsehood was causing irreparable damage to our democracy. He wasn’t banned because of who he was. He was banned because of what he did.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    Clinton lied, Bush lied about Iraq WMDs, CDC lied. Shall we delete their accounts?
  - yucky 4y ago
    A falsehood like the emails on Hunter Biden's laptop that implicated Joe Biden in a Ukrainian money laundering scheme? A story that got countless people and news outlets banned for daring to discuss? A story that we were told was "Ze Russians" manipulating us, and a story that of course turned out to be true. I feel so protected knowing I wasn't allowed to discuss that story during election season. Not that I would have voted for the ineffectual Trump anyway, but still..
    - aeternum 4y ago
      The Ministry of Truth will determine what is true. Or is it Homeland Security's new Disinformation Governance Board? so easy to get the two confused
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Trump was banned for inciting violence, not for lying. Here were the grounds for the ban: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... I find the rationale weak, Biden objectively has incited magnitudes more violence on twitter by constantly tweeting about how Putin is destroying the global economy and criticising Putin's war, something likely to "incite violence". Far far more than violence than we saw in 2020. It's just that people including Twitters administration are broadly sympathetic with him and supportive of violent resistance. What Trump got banned for is not inciting violence, but for being an asshole. You can ban any president you please if the standard is "inciting violence" because they'll do hundreds of things in their term that incites violence no matter what they do. It's not the case that twitter will ban everybody who incites violence, they just reserve the right to selectively ban anybody who does.
- fsociety 4y ago
  If the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone who posts about a BLM protest.. I would happily make a social media startup. We both know that will never happen. But this is not a question of politics. It is a question of integrity of which Trump has none.

TechBro8615 4y ago

> re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure. If re-litigating the past is pointless… > Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned …then why was his past behavior relevant when banning him for what was allegedly a single action? Also… > Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans That’s the point. Many were not valid.

aeternum 4y ago

It's interesting that Democrats seem to general favor limiting corporate power yet are completely onboard with permanent bans. It's useful to consider how this would have played out if large platforms were present during other parts of history. Many of the speeches given civil rights protesters incited some violence, often not the fault of the orator, but would it have triggered a ban? It's easy to advocate for permanent corporate bans when the people on your side control the company, but will that always be the case? How will your stance change if the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone that posts about a BLM protest if it contains any violence whatsoever?

archagon 4y ago
As far as I'm concerned, let a thousand platforms bloom. If the government steps in and prevents that from happening, then we have a problem.
more_corn 4y ago
This wasn’t about a side. A lie is a lie is a lie. He got banned for persisting in an objective falsehood. Oh by the way said falsehood was causing irreparable damage to our democracy. He wasn’t banned because of who he was. He was banned because of what he did.
- aeternum 4y ago
  Clinton lied, Bush lied about Iraq WMDs, CDC lied. Shall we delete their accounts?
- yucky 4y ago
  A falsehood like the emails on Hunter Biden's laptop that implicated Joe Biden in a Ukrainian money laundering scheme? A story that got countless people and news outlets banned for daring to discuss? A story that we were told was "Ze Russians" manipulating us, and a story that of course turned out to be true. I feel so protected knowing I wasn't allowed to discuss that story during election season. Not that I would have voted for the ineffectual Trump anyway, but still..
  - aeternum 4y ago
    The Ministry of Truth will determine what is true. Or is it Homeland Security's new Disinformation Governance Board? so easy to get the two confused
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Trump was banned for inciting violence, not for lying. Here were the grounds for the ban: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... I find the rationale weak, Biden objectively has incited magnitudes more violence on twitter by constantly tweeting about how Putin is destroying the global economy and criticising Putin's war, something likely to "incite violence". Far far more than violence than we saw in 2020. It's just that people including Twitters administration are broadly sympathetic with him and supportive of violent resistance. What Trump got banned for is not inciting violence, but for being an asshole. You can ban any president you please if the standard is "inciting violence" because they'll do hundreds of things in their term that incites violence no matter what they do. It's not the case that twitter will ban everybody who incites violence, they just reserve the right to selectively ban anybody who does.
fsociety 4y ago
If the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone who posts about a BLM protest.. I would happily make a social media startup. We both know that will never happen. But this is not a question of politics. It is a question of integrity of which Trump has none.