Who cares? But isn't that even more of a reason not to ban someone? To ban a democratically elected president of the united states. Quite dystopian. To have people supporting it, sad. Also, how many people died due to trump's "riots". How many people died from social media company supported BLM riots? It's infinitely more actually.
> Please let us know if you've found any folks with 80m followers that have been left free to coordinate violence on social media platforms.
Social media platforms itself have. That was my point. They were part of the color revolution propaganda machine a decade ago.
> Schools have libraries, it's not a big difference.
It is a big difference if an elementary school library is for young children. As opposed to one for the general public.
> Well now its you who could've saved us a lot of characters and just said "I'm one of those guys that thinks they're non-ideological, but here's my obvious rightward bias anyways"
Rightward? Hilarious. The only comments I've had flagged here are what people would consider "left leaning" comments. I'm just anti-hypocrite and commmon sense type of guy. The type that the extremists hate.
> Also, how many people died due to trump's "riots". How many people died from social media company supported BLM riots? It's infinitely more actually.
1. "Infinitely more"? Are you sure you want to be so irresponsible with your language? Infinity people died? You're starting to go off the deep end here. 25 people died in 2020. [1] And as the commenter you replied to pointed out, they did ban accounts. You are not acknowledging this, and you are in bad faith suggesting that "everyone got a pass on BLM". False.
2. This is not just about deaths, though it is the trigger. Trump did and continues to encourage the overturning of elections in the US. He continues to claim that the current president is illegitimate. The former President is repeatedly telling everyone with the utmost urgency that the entire country has been "stolen," and that "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." What do you think his followers will do in response?
We saw what they were willing to do on Jan 6. They didn't attack shops, they hit the seat of government with the explicit intent of stopping the election. We now know there were armed groups waiting to swoop in. Why do you think Twitter is obligated to continue to amplify his rhetoric?
> To ban a democratically elected president of the united states. Quite dystopian.
Actually the opposite - Trump did and said many things that would have gotten literally anyone else banned, and Twitter literally had to make a special exception in their rules for him because of it.
This is the old "when you're used to supremacy, equality feels like oppression" situation in action. Trump got more slack than anyone else ever would have, and when they finally did come down conservatives are still mad that it was "biased" and "unfair" somehow.
tbh I think the potential for retaliation likely also stayed Twitter's hand - if they had enforced the rules equally while he was still president, he likely would have found ways to retaliate against them.
qiskit|3 years ago
Who cares? But isn't that even more of a reason not to ban someone? To ban a democratically elected president of the united states. Quite dystopian. To have people supporting it, sad. Also, how many people died due to trump's "riots". How many people died from social media company supported BLM riots? It's infinitely more actually.
> Please let us know if you've found any folks with 80m followers that have been left free to coordinate violence on social media platforms.
Social media platforms itself have. That was my point. They were part of the color revolution propaganda machine a decade ago.
> Schools have libraries, it's not a big difference.
It is a big difference if an elementary school library is for young children. As opposed to one for the general public.
> Well now its you who could've saved us a lot of characters and just said "I'm one of those guys that thinks they're non-ideological, but here's my obvious rightward bias anyways"
Rightward? Hilarious. The only comments I've had flagged here are what people would consider "left leaning" comments. I'm just anti-hypocrite and commmon sense type of guy. The type that the extremists hate.
phailhaus|3 years ago
1. "Infinitely more"? Are you sure you want to be so irresponsible with your language? Infinity people died? You're starting to go off the deep end here. 25 people died in 2020. [1] And as the commenter you replied to pointed out, they did ban accounts. You are not acknowledging this, and you are in bad faith suggesting that "everyone got a pass on BLM". False.
2. This is not just about deaths, though it is the trigger. Trump did and continues to encourage the overturning of elections in the US. He continues to claim that the current president is illegitimate. The former President is repeatedly telling everyone with the utmost urgency that the entire country has been "stolen," and that "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." What do you think his followers will do in response?
We saw what they were willing to do on Jan 6. They didn't attack shops, they hit the seat of government with the explicit intent of stopping the election. We now know there were armed groups waiting to swoop in. Why do you think Twitter is obligated to continue to amplify his rhetoric?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-kill...
paulmd|3 years ago
Actually the opposite - Trump did and said many things that would have gotten literally anyone else banned, and Twitter literally had to make a special exception in their rules for him because of it.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22233450/trump-twitter-facebook-b...
This is the old "when you're used to supremacy, equality feels like oppression" situation in action. Trump got more slack than anyone else ever would have, and when they finally did come down conservatives are still mad that it was "biased" and "unfair" somehow.
tbh I think the potential for retaliation likely also stayed Twitter's hand - if they had enforced the rules equally while he was still president, he likely would have found ways to retaliate against them.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
wvenable|3 years ago
Just the opposite! Can you imagine a social media company in Russia banning Putin or China banning Jinping? Somebody would get disappeared.
microtherion|3 years ago
[deleted]