https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html The banning of Donald Trump was very ar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html The banning of Donald Trump was very arbitrary and involved a lot of 'mind reading' and 'fortune telling'. This is clear from the justification: > After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In a way this justification is always trivially true. Trump could always have a seizure or someone could hack his account and if your redline is zero risk of incitement then this redline is always being breached. But of course twitter is not going to try and quantify the risk because if you applied this crazy level (or some level that is less crazy) to any other politician then people will wonder why Trump is being singled out. Was the risk of violence from Trump continuing to tweet higher than other Democratic politicians from continuing to tweet during the BLM riots? More people were killed during the BLM violence than the 'election denying' violence. Seems a bit suspect that one resulted in politicians being banned while another didn't. If I was running twitter my standard would be the US incitement to violence standard which would mean Trump wouldn't be banned nor would any Democratic politician.