6 ms·

Lots of people talking about ToS as if it's applied consistently and without bias. Let's assume that the oft-storied "pee tapes" were real, published by a mains

Lots of people talking about ToS as if it's applied consistently and without bias. Let's assume that the oft-storied "pee tapes" were real, published by a mainstream news outlet and posted to Twitter. Would those same individuals regurgitating ToS violations agree that should receive the same treatment, or would they have been complicit in spreading it as far and wide as possible?

roenxi 4y ago
The situation is clouded by the extreme bias of the employees at Twitter. They seemed to believe they were applying the ToS consistently and fairly despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Someone who can put that up and think of it as a serious interpretation is not working from the same reality as most people. EDIT It is hard to find, here is the link to the reasoning. It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Twitter executives: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    We could be looking at a classic case of groupthink [0]. I've read a lot of political speeches with half-truths to try and gain an advantage, but the Twitter statement stands out as something that might be their honest take. Someone, probably a couple of someones, with high intelligence and communication ability was in such a state that they interpreted the Tweet as inciting violence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      A simpler explanation would be confirmation bias. Regardless, I dont see any sense in it. I wonder if anywhere he can defend it.
  - thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
    I can. The idea is that he’s signaling that an attack on the inauguration won’t injure him, and so it’s mafia talk for “attack the inauguration”. I don’t support this as a grounds. It’s so flexible that you can see or not see it at will, so, you can give a charitable read to someone you like or a threatening read to someone you don’t. It also relies on mind reading. Nevertheless a lot of people can read it that way.
- d23 4y ago
  Trump attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government and have the vice president of the United States executed by a mob.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Sources or it’s false. This claim is a pants on fire lie. No police were killed on that day, contrary to initial reports - but one protester was. Trump never specifically called for violence but remarked to show protest “peacefully at the capitol” on Twitter. For the lack of evidence, the Jan 6 committee has been running in circles begging for people to step forward. I don’t have to like Trump or support him to know this claim is asinine.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      There is a very lengthy blog posts about why Trump was removed on Twitter's website. I am surprised you pretend like his actions and Tweets around that time are no biggie and that you downplay the violence and actions that occurred on Jan 6 to make it seem like the protestors were the ones who were innocent and harmed, and just FYI the police officer that later died was specifically tied to the events on Jan 6 and several others were seriously injured.
      - gjsman-1000 4y ago
        In no way do I want to downplay the actions of the protesters. However, reading what Trump actually said and at the times he said it, it’s way too much a stretch for me to believe that is what he meant. Also, I think any explainations from Twitter, considering who was running them, are one-sided and should not be taken on face value. That still is the case for who is running it now. I do not trust either for a remotely unbiased assessment.
myko 4y ago
I think there is a big difference between the sitting POTUS who was known to ask for and receive Russia's help getting elected being shown to have kompromat on him vs the unelected son of a presidential candidate's hacked iCloud nudes being posted Especially given that in the "pee tapes" trump is clothed while the women are nude and unknown individuals
- assttoasstmgr 4y ago
  It's a bit naïve to seriously think this story has anything to do with nudes. The real story was about corruption at the highest levels of government, selling influence, etc. The crack rocks and related pornographic content were a convenient if not shocking distraction. Embarassing? Yes. Scandalous? Sure. But it wasn't what made it news worthy at all.
  - sroussey 4y ago
    That’s like saying Clinton using a cigar was nothing of importance to politics.
    - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
      Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for his creative use of cigars.
      - sroussey 4y ago
        That’s not the point. It could have been left out. But it was not and catapulted the author to the SCOTUS.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      It was important for selling tabloids, which are now indistinguishable from mainstream news.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    The lurid bits just helped give the story legs. The only point of the laptop saga is to cast doubt on Biden's integrity and to counter any sort of similar questions about Trump's. This was yet another October surprise -- a spiced up rendition of Buttery Males v2.
dbbk 4y ago
Revenge porn is illegal

roenxi 4y ago

The situation is clouded by the extreme bias of the employees at Twitter. They seemed to believe they were applying the ToS consistently and fairly despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Someone who can put that up and think of it as a serious interpretation is not working from the same reality as most people. EDIT It is hard to find, here is the link to the reasoning. It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Twitter executives: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

nonethewiser 4y ago
> It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.
- roenxi 4y ago
  We could be looking at a classic case of groupthink [0]. I've read a lot of political speeches with half-truths to try and gain an advantage, but the Twitter statement stands out as something that might be their honest take. Someone, probably a couple of someones, with high intelligence and communication ability was in such a state that they interpreted the Tweet as inciting violence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    A simpler explanation would be confirmation bias. Regardless, I dont see any sense in it. I wonder if anywhere he can defend it.
- thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
  I can. The idea is that he’s signaling that an attack on the inauguration won’t injure him, and so it’s mafia talk for “attack the inauguration”. I don’t support this as a grounds. It’s so flexible that you can see or not see it at will, so, you can give a charitable read to someone you like or a threatening read to someone you don’t. It also relies on mind reading. Nevertheless a lot of people can read it that way.
d23 4y ago
Trump attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government and have the vice president of the United States executed by a mob.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Sources or it’s false. This claim is a pants on fire lie. No police were killed on that day, contrary to initial reports - but one protester was. Trump never specifically called for violence but remarked to show protest “peacefully at the capitol” on Twitter. For the lack of evidence, the Jan 6 committee has been running in circles begging for people to step forward. I don’t have to like Trump or support him to know this claim is asinine.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    There is a very lengthy blog posts about why Trump was removed on Twitter's website. I am surprised you pretend like his actions and Tweets around that time are no biggie and that you downplay the violence and actions that occurred on Jan 6 to make it seem like the protestors were the ones who were innocent and harmed, and just FYI the police officer that later died was specifically tied to the events on Jan 6 and several others were seriously injured.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      In no way do I want to downplay the actions of the protesters. However, reading what Trump actually said and at the times he said it, it’s way too much a stretch for me to believe that is what he meant. Also, I think any explainations from Twitter, considering who was running them, are one-sided and should not be taken on face value. That still is the case for who is running it now. I do not trust either for a remotely unbiased assessment.

myko 4y ago

I think there is a big difference between the sitting POTUS who was known to ask for and receive Russia's help getting elected being shown to have kompromat on him vs the unelected son of a presidential candidate's hacked iCloud nudes being posted Especially given that in the "pee tapes" trump is clothed while the women are nude and unknown individuals

assttoasstmgr 4y ago
It's a bit naïve to seriously think this story has anything to do with nudes. The real story was about corruption at the highest levels of government, selling influence, etc. The crack rocks and related pornographic content were a convenient if not shocking distraction. Embarassing? Yes. Scandalous? Sure. But it wasn't what made it news worthy at all.
- sroussey 4y ago
  That’s like saying Clinton using a cigar was nothing of importance to politics.
  - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for his creative use of cigars.
    - sroussey 4y ago
      That’s not the point. It could have been left out. But it was not and catapulted the author to the SCOTUS.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    It was important for selling tabloids, which are now indistinguishable from mainstream news.
- pstuart 4y ago
  The lurid bits just helped give the story legs. The only point of the laptop saga is to cast doubt on Biden's integrity and to counter any sort of similar questions about Trump's. This was yet another October surprise -- a spiced up rendition of Buttery Males v2.

dbbk 4y ago

Revenge porn is illegal