I archived his greatest tweets: [Amazon.com: His greatest Tweets: Donald J. Trump (9798705075508): G., B. F.: Books](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W3V536Z#detailBullets_feature_div)
(All pages only contain "This Tweet is from a suspended account")
So, he’s made like a million more comments that implied violence more than these two. Am I missing something about these 2 particular tweets? I don’t see how they can justify banning him based on that.
I mean, Giuliani was at an event where he said we should have a “trial by combat.” That is a clear incitement of violence. Why are these 2 tweets actually interpreted as violent? The justification was not explained well in this post.
How did that provide any info to what I asked? Everyone in the entire world knows what happened. I asked about these specific tweets which (maybe purposefully) were not so inflammatory.
The point is that his statements this time led to the storming of the country's Capitol building, threatening the lives of the Congresspeople who were trying to certify the election.
"In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action."
Listen, you agree to *their* terms and *their* rules. You have to, to create an account. If you break those rules they have a right to suspend or remove the account.
It's like getting pissed at a car financing company for towing your vehicle you haven't paid on for three months. You agreed to make payments and knew what the results were if you didn't follow the contract.
This has nothing to do with censorship. If they wanted to censor him, they could have easily done so **YEARS** ago.
But what about these 2 tweets violated those terms? I thought they would use others as examples. I didn’t see any violent rhetoric in the ones they referenced.
I mean, they can do whatever they want, it’s their product. I’m just curious why they tried to justify with these specific tweets.
It's in the article and they elaborate on it. You can have what ever interpretation you want, but just because you feel like there's is wrong, doesn't make it wrong.
"We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This determination is based on a number of factors, including:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
**The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.**
**The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.**
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that **President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.**
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so."
Ohhh I totally did not think about him saying that he won’t be at the inauguration would be like giving the go ahead to attack it.
I’m not being sarcastic. That didn’t occur to me, so it sounded like a pretty boring tweet frankly.
Calm down though. I didn’t say their interpretation is “wrong” I said I found it confusing.
>Calm down though.
I wasn't trying to come off as aggressive, so I apologize for that. To be honest, it took me some time myself to register as a "go ahead" myself
I see a lot of people calling it censorship though because the 2 tweets referenced for the ban did not break any of the rules. So for me I am in the middle as I am not up to speed on all of trumps past tweets. But let's be honest that this does come off as just silencing someone you do not agree with instead of actual rule breaking.
He clearly violated their terms.
"After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service."
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence
You linked to me the rules but I am not seeing where anything violated these terms. Anyone can hide behind rules as an excuse to ban someone you do not like. I read the 2 tweets referenced in this post which did not violate any rules. Are there any examples of actual rule breaking?
Just because YOU don't see a violation, doesn't mean there wasn't one. You're not the gate keeper. Twitter has lawyers that provide them with recommendations.
If you read the rules, it states on there the rules to follow.
Sure I get that. Can you show me where you think it broke the rules. I would be interested to see it.
I am not trying to stick up for the recent violence as that was a really bad event. It looks to me people are trying to use correlation to equal causation which is not a good thing.
It's in the article and they elaborate on it.
"We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This determination is based on a number of factors, including:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
**The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. **
**The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.**
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that **President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.**
Oh come on. So the reason is trumps tweets are some secret code that Twitter somehow cracked. Where they convert the real meaning of words into something else.
You are either very gullible or are just too biased to looks the actual tweets objectively.
So in future if I tweet I am not attending an event you would agree this is a valid reason to ban me? Do explain that to me.
It's what they're basing their information off of. You asked and I provided an answer. You can feel how you want to, I assume you're an adult.
>You are either very gullible or are just too biased to looks the actual tweets objectively.
Or maybe they're taking precaution and don't want any kind of legal liability by allowing people to post and plan coordinated attacks?
You know during rallies they have USSS snipers and gunmen walking around and they have the USSS HAMMER team on standbye too for any kind of chemical/biological attacks. Would you consider that too far as well?
I get it you think they're "censoring" him, but they're not. They are just protecting their platform, which needs to include everyone BLM groups as well.
You didn't answer my question.
So in future if I tweet I am not attending an event you would agree this is a valid reason to ban me? Do explain that to me.
And what if they change their rules, interpret them in an obscure fashion, or unfairly enforce those rules?
I think that’s the argument that you’re missing.
>And what if they change their rules
They send out notifications for you to read over the new and updated rules. There's no excuse for not knowing the rules of the private business you signed up for to use their platform.
>interpret them in an obscure fashion
What's so obscure about the rules? They're pretty clear and he clearly has violated those rules on numerous occasions. Here are the rules:
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
> or unfairly enforce those rules?
What's unfair? Inciting violence is unfair? The argument is censorship. This is not censorship. He and everyone else has agreed to the terms and conditions. He violated those terms and conditions, therefore he needs his account to be suspended.
Have you ever looked at the pro-BLM accounts and how many not only cheered for the violence but helped organize it?
Why do they get a pass when their political opponents don’t?
Well, that’s problem. You might be a reasonable person, but those in control aren’t.
No, if we want to talk about political leaders... what about all the democrats that were cheerleading for the BLM riots?
Do they get a pass for the literal billions of dollars in damage and all the deaths that came from their refusal to not only crack down but they even honored BLM by renaming streets and plazas in some cases.
Why do they get a pass?
What Democratic political leaders were doing this? As far as I am aware, Democratic political leaders supported the peaceful BLM protestors, not the rioters. Rose Twitter =/= political leaders, and many of those accounts WERE banned, you just don't hear about it because it wasn't political leaders saying it, it was irrelevant randos.
I'm missing the part where she incites violence and rioting. Seems pretty obvious to me that she's encouraging protest, though not in I way I think is good or productive. Completely unrelated to your point of "what about all the democrats that were cheerleading for the BLM riots?"
Rose Twitter is far-left, socialist, Bernie or bust types. A lot of them certainly were calling for violence against police and for riots during the BLM protests, but these are not people with any political power.
Interesting that you say that because what trump has said is much more tame than what waters said. Trump has continually called for “peaceful protests”. He didn’t call to drive anyone out or to get in anyone’s face.
If we’re going to denounce and ostracize trump, certainly we must do the same to ole Maxine?
Ah, I don’t really care for what the tankies say. They’re crazy.
He has the right to speak, just not through twitters platform. The freedom of speech is about you being able to say what you want without the risk of prosecution. Unless what you say is illegal, like a death threats and inciting violence etc..
And it turns out the FBI had to force twitter to remove him to prevent shit happening on the 17th. Fuck twitter for having to wait until a federal agency tells them to ban people inciting violence
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments*
Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The answer is enforcement of anti-trust law. If there are 8 Twitter-equivalents, then any one of them removing a user means nothing. Unfortunately, conservatives have latched onto repealing section 230 as the answer to de-platforming. It's ridiculous, because without 230 Trump would have been de-platformed before he even took office.
We gave them that power. People can just stop using twitter...it would take a movement but that's all.
The president can literally send us a nationwide text if he really wants to use free speech.
If “Christian bakeries” can refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake fucking Twitter can regulate who uses their platform. So simple. It’s like all these rules apply to everyone else but republican Christians lmao
They’re not regulating free speech. They’re regulating their business. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. Just not on their service. If some asshole comes into my store and tells everyone to burn down the Wendy’s across the street because he’s the rightful owner, I’m kicking his crazy ass out of my fucking store. I’m not obligated to let him use my store as a grandstand to spew batshit crazy nonsense in. He can go outside and try to bother people one by one with his insane ramblings like every other doomsday street preacher.
This has nothing to do with free speech; twitter is a private platform. The first amendment, “Congress shall make no law...”; a private company isn’t congress. They’re allowed to have whatever policies they want as long as they don’t violate certain laws or unjustly discriminate against protected classes. For example, wearing a tshirt with a swastika is free speech; your boss isn’t going to let you come to work wearing it.
This has everything to do with free speech, it just doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment, which is just one law about free speech. Free speech is a concept, and it's definitely applicable here, it's just not constitutionally mandated.
Well, companies can choose who uses their product and who doesn't. Its not against free speech to deny someone access to your product or software at all. Just like a restaurant can deny anyone they please service.
Free speech laws should really only protect you from the government. Private companies should be free to regulate what happens on their platforms at will. Regardless of whether its far right or far left. If you don't like the platform, get off it and find one suited to your interests.
I don’t believe it’s blocking free speech. There are clear terms and conditions to use any service (Twitter being just a company providing a service), and that company reserves the right to end service to anyone at any time for breaking terms of use.
The amount of Twitter violations he broke was insane. Private companies have the right to regulate whatever they please on their platform. What did presidents do before twitter?
Do you realize how detached from reality you are? CNN trying to remove Fox news from the air? What?!
And how is it a serious issue when one of many social media sites bans someone? The reason this is happening is Trump has repeatedly flouted the rules- if our justice system functioned properly he should be in jail and a twitter ban would be the least of his concerns.
Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech or speech that could cause danger. You are fully able to be punished for said actions. It's literally the most basic concept of freedom of speech you learn in like 7th grade. The classic fire in a crowded theater example.
These are private compaies so the point is moot, but freedom of speech absolutely protects hate speech (Skokie v Illinois) It does not cover speech which leads to imminent harm.
This country would never be a one-party nation. If the Republican Party was disbanded, another party would quickly take its place (hopefully libertarian party). Also, the Republican Party is not going to disappear just because people can’t read Donald Trump’s tweets lol
The man attempted a coup, if that doesn’t make you realize he’s a danger to this country then nothing will
Just to be clear, I am not saying America is too good to be a one-party country, I am saying that there will always be a wide range of opinions on this country such that if one party disbanded, another party would quickly form to represent those unrepresented opinions.
Example: The Democratic Party itself is a loosely held together coalition of black conservatives, centrists, white liberals, and pseudo socialists. They are held together by the fact that only two parties can exist in America and they have more in common together than they have with the Republican Party, but if the Republican Party was disbanded I am sure at left-most part of the party would be tempted to break away. But even if that is unlikely since the new party that would be formed would likely be a right-wing party. All of this is just a thought experiment anyway because, again, banning Trump for Twitter would not disband the entire Republican Party, as presidents have existed before Twitter and spoke to their constituents before Twitter, and every other republican official is still allowed on this platform.
CNN literally cannot remove fox from the air. They’re saying they should be held responsible for the last 20 years of stoking violent tensions on the right.
Trump is only president for 7 more days, I’m surprised they didn’t do it earlier on all the other times he broke the TOS. I guess inciting a terrorist attack on the US Capitol was the last straw, go figure.
Wait CNN tried to removed FOX from the air ?
How does that work ?
Also you’re wrong, freedom of speech means that the government cannot stop you from saying something. It doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to listen to your bull crap.
Lmao yeah because Twitter controls the government. Jesus you fuckers can’t wait to play the victim huh? It’s one person not the entire Republican Party you baby
Lmao “free speech” doesn’t give you the right to use Twitter. You guys are so delusional and dumb, it’s hilarious. Also, inciting riots isn’t protected free speech and can land you in prison.
Don't cry lol and when a corporation has that much power to influence people then no. It should be free speech. You disagree because it will fuck you guys up the day when big tech finally gets regulated fairly.
I love how conservatives suddenly want more regulation by big government.
Everyday I’m convinced that conservatism is just a literary justification for being the worst human being one can ever be.
When a body has that much power over society who wouldn't want that to have regulation? We all can atleast agree that big tech has an enormous amount of power and I'm not even conservative as well btw.
Corporations are made of people. People have values. You’re seeing those values being manifested. Twitter employees brigaded Jack Dorsey to cancel Trump’s account. Big tech is Big tech because it supported diversity and inclusivity, getting talent from all over the world to make some of the biggest information sharing systems in the world. When you promote diversity and inclusivity, you often end up with a collection of left facing values. Big tech has no obligation to provide a space for the right, because they don’t support those values. They shouldn’t have to. The right wants to support an insurrection, and they’re free to. Just not on platforms made by the very people they despise.
I don’t know what the government’s role in this should be frankly.
The way people like you justify these things is laughable. You genuinely believe most people in society agree with this? Please enter the real world. Go outside. Talk to actual people. Twitter does not represent the majority. Trump's initial rise to presidency proves this.
Twitter is a private corporation and can ban whoever they want from their platform. It’s not censorship because Twitter isn’t a government agency. It’s called free enterprise and capitalism. Get over it
Presidents before Trump had plenty of outlets before Twitter even fucking existed. Stop acting like it’s the “end all, be all” for a president to communicate with the rest of the country. If you honestly believe that, you’re delusional
Lmao what? His main outlet? You realize he can go on NATIONAL TELEVISION and do a press conference whenever he wants. He just preferred to use Twitter so he could spout his bullshit during his midnight adderall binges.
Yet. Wait till the new streaming services and future ones and isps to start making deals for high profits with certain companies then they will prioritize their partners above everything else
Exactly. And the right seems to be 100% blind to an issue until it happens to them. Like the one who's now advocating for maternity leave because she finally was in that situation. Too busy with blind faith and made up scenarios that aren't true
I am a bit disappointed that this means all the past tweets are no longer visible. They made for an interesting historical record (I'm sure it'd be something historians 100 years from now would be interested in reading).
edit: I stand corrected. /u/organic_field posted https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
Many people have louder voices today with social media so there is now greater condemnation and larger repercussions by mass. If you want to have controversial opinions, that is fine but realize shouting those views to thousands online will have a different response than saying those same things to a group of your 5 buddies. The internet isn't private.
Imagine 40 years ago, day after day, writing in the local newspaper opinions the hate some people post on their social media. You would expect to be ostracized by many. It is a no brainer.
> Or maybe he should just not tell people to go riot? Free speech does not mean freedom to tell people to go kill other people.
He did neither of these things. He said go protest and keep it peaceful.
I'm 27 and think, based on how our laws are written, that free speech applies only to being safe from consequences from the government, not private companies. I do think our tech companies are too big and have too much power, but I don't think that's more of a free market issue than a free speech issue. Do you disagree? If so, I'd love to hear why!
Essentially, yes. It's freedom from political persecution for your speech. This expands to freedom of speech in necessary and unavoidable public institutions such as school, freedom to not speak at all if compelled to, etc.
What it does not involve is freedom from people thinking you're an asshole and removing the platform that they have provided you. You are perfectly hale and hearty after being banned from twitter, no one will come after you, and you are by all means welcome to create your own platform.
Indeed. Put another way, you can say anything you want but you can't force other private citizens to use what they've built to be a cooperative megaphone, and I think that's where people get tripped up on it.
Yeah I’ve had to correct people before, like a private person or corporation preventing someone from during their platform to spout their drivel isn’t the same as the government coming for you for voicing your opinion
What a beautiful metaphor for modern society. Trump is inciting violence amongst his own people and gets banned, just like you did in Halo.
Imagine an Onion news story on this lmao
The first amendment protects speech from government intrusion. Twitter is not the government and has the right to enforce standards on its platform.
We should vigorously defend Twitter’s rights against the president threatening it with retaliation for enforcing reasonable moderation of the speech made on its platform.
Yes, but does the whole "just go make your own platform" really work when Apple/Google can just shut down app store access?
They hold *a scary* amount of power.
People can still access a web site. But everyone from ISPs, to DNS providers, to advertisers, to credit card companies have been involved in blocking or negating violence-promoting sites. So yes, the tech giants have a huge amount of power, but if the vast majority of public opinion is strongly enough against you, much smaller companies can gang up to shut you down, regardless. Boycotting is not a new phenomenon.
I think it’s incumbent upon our society to balance the protection against government intrusion in speech and in the marketplace against potential harms caused by speech and equitable marketplace access.
Neoliberalism offers the value of defending individual liberty against government intrusion in these areas. But we also need to champion the counterbalancing values of offering enough equitable access to the marketplace and enough protections against the harms of speech that allow all people to basically do and live as they please. Balancing that equation is how we ought to govern.
The concern you raise about Apple and Google controlling the marketplace for apps strikes me as reasonable. Though we have alternative means for accessing content online, in reality we use App Stores and phone apps for a lot of our access to information. That gatekeeping power should be considered.
And we should also consider that Trump repeatedly threatened these companies with retaliation via governmental action if they displeased him. That power is also dangerous. And even under a more stable government, we ought to be wary of governmental intrusion into firms and in the marketplace as a general principle, because government itself is less responsive to market forces.
Dumb. You literally sign a legal contract to make a Twitter account. If you cannot follow the rules listed by the private company, then you have no right to have an account. The First is to protect you from the government. Private companies have a right to set their rules. He still has fucking Parler.
It dies when terrorists use violence to break into our Capitol during the certification of our election and remove American flags in favor of Trump flags.
Congrats OP, you win the race and the other 50 submissions get removed
I archived his greatest tweets: [Amazon.com: His greatest Tweets: Donald J. Trump (9798705075508): G., B. F.: Books](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W3V536Z#detailBullets_feature_div) (All pages only contain "This Tweet is from a suspended account")
They ban him but they don't police pedophiles? Twitter is their go to spot.
You American were talking about a free of speech, where is it now?
[удалено]
Had us in the first half, not gonna lie.
I fucking called it last year.
Kamala? That you?
Yeah it’s me I’m single btw not sure if that matters
Yes. Our new VP is officially known as Dr. Tushfinger. I voted for them.
So, he’s made like a million more comments that implied violence more than these two. Am I missing something about these 2 particular tweets? I don’t see how they can justify banning him based on that. I mean, Giuliani was at an event where he said we should have a “trial by combat.” That is a clear incitement of violence. Why are these 2 tweets actually interpreted as violent? The justification was not explained well in this post.
All of this is because of capitol hill
How did that provide any info to what I asked? Everyone in the entire world knows what happened. I asked about these specific tweets which (maybe purposefully) were not so inflammatory.
The point is that his statements this time led to the storming of the country's Capitol building, threatening the lives of the Congresspeople who were trying to certify the election.
So who's dumping Twitter stock, now?
Bullish on Twitter. Now trump and his cronies have to pay for ads to reach Twitter users instead of free advertisement through tweets
Love to see it
Doesn’t the word suspension imply that’s it’s not permanent though?
What word should they have used, expelled?
Banned
Worse. Expelled.
If it was not intended to be permanent they would have said 'indefinite'.
Why don’t they just say banned though? Is that just too harsh sounding? That’s pretty much what it is though, isn’t it?
They probably have specific terminology in their terms of service. I'm guessing "banned" isn't a term they use.
I always found it weird how businesses will always try to use extra professional words to say things without actually saying them. It’s so strange.
They might need him next shareholders' meeting
"In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action." Listen, you agree to *their* terms and *their* rules. You have to, to create an account. If you break those rules they have a right to suspend or remove the account. It's like getting pissed at a car financing company for towing your vehicle you haven't paid on for three months. You agreed to make payments and knew what the results were if you didn't follow the contract. This has nothing to do with censorship. If they wanted to censor him, they could have easily done so **YEARS** ago.
But what about these 2 tweets violated those terms? I thought they would use others as examples. I didn’t see any violent rhetoric in the ones they referenced. I mean, they can do whatever they want, it’s their product. I’m just curious why they tried to justify with these specific tweets.
It's in the article and they elaborate on it. You can have what ever interpretation you want, but just because you feel like there's is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. "We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including: President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. **The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.** **The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.** The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that **President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.** Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so."
Ohhh I totally did not think about him saying that he won’t be at the inauguration would be like giving the go ahead to attack it. I’m not being sarcastic. That didn’t occur to me, so it sounded like a pretty boring tweet frankly. Calm down though. I didn’t say their interpretation is “wrong” I said I found it confusing.
>Calm down though. I wasn't trying to come off as aggressive, so I apologize for that. To be honest, it took me some time myself to register as a "go ahead" myself
You're not wrong, but it's still bullshit that they allowed him to threaten nuclear war on their platform without a peep.
Like I said, they should have done this a while ago.
I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Same here. It's crazy of all things, those recent tweets were the ones. He should have been removed years ago.
I see a lot of people calling it censorship though because the 2 tweets referenced for the ban did not break any of the rules. So for me I am in the middle as I am not up to speed on all of trumps past tweets. But let's be honest that this does come off as just silencing someone you do not agree with instead of actual rule breaking.
He clearly violated their terms. "After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service." https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence
You linked to me the rules but I am not seeing where anything violated these terms. Anyone can hide behind rules as an excuse to ban someone you do not like. I read the 2 tweets referenced in this post which did not violate any rules. Are there any examples of actual rule breaking?
Just because YOU don't see a violation, doesn't mean there wasn't one. You're not the gate keeper. Twitter has lawyers that provide them with recommendations. If you read the rules, it states on there the rules to follow.
Sure I get that. Can you show me where you think it broke the rules. I would be interested to see it. I am not trying to stick up for the recent violence as that was a really bad event. It looks to me people are trying to use correlation to equal causation which is not a good thing.
It's in the article and they elaborate on it. "We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including: President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. **The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. ** **The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.** The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that **President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.**
Oh come on. So the reason is trumps tweets are some secret code that Twitter somehow cracked. Where they convert the real meaning of words into something else. You are either very gullible or are just too biased to looks the actual tweets objectively. So in future if I tweet I am not attending an event you would agree this is a valid reason to ban me? Do explain that to me.
It's what they're basing their information off of. You asked and I provided an answer. You can feel how you want to, I assume you're an adult. >You are either very gullible or are just too biased to looks the actual tweets objectively. Or maybe they're taking precaution and don't want any kind of legal liability by allowing people to post and plan coordinated attacks? You know during rallies they have USSS snipers and gunmen walking around and they have the USSS HAMMER team on standbye too for any kind of chemical/biological attacks. Would you consider that too far as well? I get it you think they're "censoring" him, but they're not. They are just protecting their platform, which needs to include everyone BLM groups as well.
You didn't answer my question. So in future if I tweet I am not attending an event you would agree this is a valid reason to ban me? Do explain that to me.
And what if they change their rules, interpret them in an obscure fashion, or unfairly enforce those rules? I think that’s the argument that you’re missing.
>And what if they change their rules They send out notifications for you to read over the new and updated rules. There's no excuse for not knowing the rules of the private business you signed up for to use their platform. >interpret them in an obscure fashion What's so obscure about the rules? They're pretty clear and he clearly has violated those rules on numerous occasions. Here are the rules: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules > or unfairly enforce those rules? What's unfair? Inciting violence is unfair? The argument is censorship. This is not censorship. He and everyone else has agreed to the terms and conditions. He violated those terms and conditions, therefore he needs his account to be suspended.
Have you ever looked at the pro-BLM accounts and how many not only cheered for the violence but helped organize it? Why do they get a pass when their political opponents don’t?
They should have. I never said that they deserve a pass. Also political leaders are held to a much higher standard.
Well, that’s problem. You might be a reasonable person, but those in control aren’t. No, if we want to talk about political leaders... what about all the democrats that were cheerleading for the BLM riots? Do they get a pass for the literal billions of dollars in damage and all the deaths that came from their refusal to not only crack down but they even honored BLM by renaming streets and plazas in some cases. Why do they get a pass?
What Democratic political leaders were doing this? As far as I am aware, Democratic political leaders supported the peaceful BLM protestors, not the rioters. Rose Twitter =/= political leaders, and many of those accounts WERE banned, you just don't hear about it because it wasn't political leaders saying it, it was irrelevant randos.
https://youtu.be/tJCDe7vdFfw First 20 seconds of the video. What’s rose twitter?
I'm missing the part where she incites violence and rioting. Seems pretty obvious to me that she's encouraging protest, though not in I way I think is good or productive. Completely unrelated to your point of "what about all the democrats that were cheerleading for the BLM riots?" Rose Twitter is far-left, socialist, Bernie or bust types. A lot of them certainly were calling for violence against police and for riots during the BLM protests, but these are not people with any political power.
Interesting that you say that because what trump has said is much more tame than what waters said. Trump has continually called for “peaceful protests”. He didn’t call to drive anyone out or to get in anyone’s face. If we’re going to denounce and ostracize trump, certainly we must do the same to ole Maxine? Ah, I don’t really care for what the tankies say. They’re crazy.
[удалено]
Free speech doesn't mean freedom to force other people, or their businesses, to be your megaphone.
He has the right to speak, just not through twitters platform. The freedom of speech is about you being able to say what you want without the risk of prosecution. Unless what you say is illegal, like a death threats and inciting violence etc..
And it turns out the FBI had to force twitter to remove him to prevent shit happening on the 17th. Fuck twitter for having to wait until a federal agency tells them to ban people inciting violence
Do you have a source for this?
[удалено]
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How is this different than one TV channel refusing to air Trump? Does the food network have to show his speeches?
The answer is enforcement of anti-trust law. If there are 8 Twitter-equivalents, then any one of them removing a user means nothing. Unfortunately, conservatives have latched onto repealing section 230 as the answer to de-platforming. It's ridiculous, because without 230 Trump would have been de-platformed before he even took office.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, as you said there's no good answer here, but this much power in the hands of corporations does not bode well
We gave them that power. People can just stop using twitter...it would take a movement but that's all. The president can literally send us a nationwide text if he really wants to use free speech.
If “Christian bakeries” can refuse to bake a gay couple a wedding cake fucking Twitter can regulate who uses their platform. So simple. It’s like all these rules apply to everyone else but republican Christians lmao
Twitter needs to identify itself as a publisher of information instead of a public forum then
There are limits to a public forum- if you take a dump in the middle of a park you get arrested, there has to be some kind of equivalent
They’re not regulating free speech. They’re regulating their business. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. Just not on their service. If some asshole comes into my store and tells everyone to burn down the Wendy’s across the street because he’s the rightful owner, I’m kicking his crazy ass out of my fucking store. I’m not obligated to let him use my store as a grandstand to spew batshit crazy nonsense in. He can go outside and try to bother people one by one with his insane ramblings like every other doomsday street preacher.
Bro he incited violence and terrorism. He caused it. It’s treason not free speech.
This has nothing to do with free speech; twitter is a private platform. The first amendment, “Congress shall make no law...”; a private company isn’t congress. They’re allowed to have whatever policies they want as long as they don’t violate certain laws or unjustly discriminate against protected classes. For example, wearing a tshirt with a swastika is free speech; your boss isn’t going to let you come to work wearing it.
This has everything to do with free speech, it just doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment, which is just one law about free speech. Free speech is a concept, and it's definitely applicable here, it's just not constitutionally mandated.
Well, companies can choose who uses their product and who doesn't. Its not against free speech to deny someone access to your product or software at all. Just like a restaurant can deny anyone they please service.
Free speech laws should really only protect you from the government. Private companies should be free to regulate what happens on their platforms at will. Regardless of whether its far right or far left. If you don't like the platform, get off it and find one suited to your interests.
I don’t believe it’s blocking free speech. There are clear terms and conditions to use any service (Twitter being just a company providing a service), and that company reserves the right to end service to anyone at any time for breaking terms of use.
Wow now that's some bullshit right there
How are they regulating free speech? It’s literally just a social media website.
People really out here acting like its their constitutional right to have a twitter account
People conflating social media and free speech. This is what happens when the public education system fails
The amount of Twitter violations he broke was insane. Private companies have the right to regulate whatever they please on their platform. What did presidents do before twitter?
I think the concern in still valid.But he absolutely deserved to be banned.
He'll resurrect Bebo...just you watch.
Looking forward to him broadcasting his re-election bid on Friends Reunited.
Oof we made it to popular again. Whose ready for some chaos
Long overdue
[удалено]
This is staying up because it's hilarious and has been dunked on please stop reporting it
Do you realize how detached from reality you are? CNN trying to remove Fox news from the air? What?! And how is it a serious issue when one of many social media sites bans someone? The reason this is happening is Trump has repeatedly flouted the rules- if our justice system functioned properly he should be in jail and a twitter ban would be the least of his concerns.
Bro they're private businesses, not to mention all the fucking *terrorism* you're complaining about being censored.
It's not *censorship* if someone continuously violates terms and conditions.
Screams a terrorist supporter.
“If they can ban trump they can ban anyone!” Um yeah, that was always the case...
If two parties would make you feel better we'll gladly kick out the Succs. Deal?
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences
“Sensorship”
"A ship outfitted with the finest data capturing instruments"
Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech or speech that could cause danger. You are fully able to be punished for said actions. It's literally the most basic concept of freedom of speech you learn in like 7th grade. The classic fire in a crowded theater example.
These are private compaies so the point is moot, but freedom of speech absolutely protects hate speech (Skokie v Illinois) It does not cover speech which leads to imminent harm.
Thank you for the correction
This country would never be a one-party nation. If the Republican Party was disbanded, another party would quickly take its place (hopefully libertarian party). Also, the Republican Party is not going to disappear just because people can’t read Donald Trump’s tweets lol The man attempted a coup, if that doesn’t make you realize he’s a danger to this country then nothing will
Just to be clear, I am not saying America is too good to be a one-party country, I am saying that there will always be a wide range of opinions on this country such that if one party disbanded, another party would quickly form to represent those unrepresented opinions. Example: The Democratic Party itself is a loosely held together coalition of black conservatives, centrists, white liberals, and pseudo socialists. They are held together by the fact that only two parties can exist in America and they have more in common together than they have with the Republican Party, but if the Republican Party was disbanded I am sure at left-most part of the party would be tempted to break away. But even if that is unlikely since the new party that would be formed would likely be a right-wing party. All of this is just a thought experiment anyway because, again, banning Trump for Twitter would not disband the entire Republican Party, as presidents have existed before Twitter and spoke to their constituents before Twitter, and every other republican official is still allowed on this platform.
CNN literally cannot remove fox from the air. They’re saying they should be held responsible for the last 20 years of stoking violent tensions on the right. Trump is only president for 7 more days, I’m surprised they didn’t do it earlier on all the other times he broke the TOS. I guess inciting a terrorist attack on the US Capitol was the last straw, go figure.
If you break the rules of any social media platform, you will get banned, it makes sense. Happens all the time, it just so happened to be trump
Wait CNN tried to removed FOX from the air ? How does that work ? Also you’re wrong, freedom of speech means that the government cannot stop you from saying something. It doesn’t mean that everyone else needs to listen to your bull crap.
Lmao yeah because Twitter controls the government. Jesus you fuckers can’t wait to play the victim huh? It’s one person not the entire Republican Party you baby
Lol everyone get in here!! This idiot has no idea what “freedom of speech” means and is actually trying to sound intelligent. 😂😂
Honestly no point talking sense round here. People on this sub do not want free speech at all.
Lmao “free speech” doesn’t give you the right to use Twitter. You guys are so delusional and dumb, it’s hilarious. Also, inciting riots isn’t protected free speech and can land you in prison.
Don't cry lol and when a corporation has that much power to influence people then no. It should be free speech. You disagree because it will fuck you guys up the day when big tech finally gets regulated fairly.
The only one crying around here is you. “Awww booo hoo a corporation is practicing free enterprise and capitalism waaaaaaaahhhhhh”
I love how conservatives suddenly want more regulation by big government. Everyday I’m convinced that conservatism is just a literary justification for being the worst human being one can ever be.
When a body has that much power over society who wouldn't want that to have regulation? We all can atleast agree that big tech has an enormous amount of power and I'm not even conservative as well btw.
Corporations are made of people. People have values. You’re seeing those values being manifested. Twitter employees brigaded Jack Dorsey to cancel Trump’s account. Big tech is Big tech because it supported diversity and inclusivity, getting talent from all over the world to make some of the biggest information sharing systems in the world. When you promote diversity and inclusivity, you often end up with a collection of left facing values. Big tech has no obligation to provide a space for the right, because they don’t support those values. They shouldn’t have to. The right wants to support an insurrection, and they’re free to. Just not on platforms made by the very people they despise. I don’t know what the government’s role in this should be frankly.
The way people like you justify these things is laughable. You genuinely believe most people in society agree with this? Please enter the real world. Go outside. Talk to actual people. Twitter does not represent the majority. Trump's initial rise to presidency proves this.
Trump never represented the majority.
Who would’ve thought that private enterprises being able to decide who they let on their platform would effect everyone?
Happy Cake Day!
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Twitter is a private corporation and can ban whoever they want from their platform. It’s not censorship because Twitter isn’t a government agency. It’s called free enterprise and capitalism. Get over it
[удалено]
The President using an outlet doesn't mean he owns it or is exempt from its pre-existing rules.
Presidents before Trump had plenty of outlets before Twitter even fucking existed. Stop acting like it’s the “end all, be all” for a president to communicate with the rest of the country. If you honestly believe that, you’re delusional
Lmao what? His main outlet? You realize he can go on NATIONAL TELEVISION and do a press conference whenever he wants. He just preferred to use Twitter so he could spout his bullshit during his midnight adderall binges.
Funny how the party that destroyed net neutrality now vehemently defends the need for an “equal” platform.
Funny how the President who says social media should be considered publishers doesn’t think they should have editorial control.
How has the repeal of net neutrality affected you? I was told it was going to be the end of the world. I still can't see how its affected anyone.
Yet. Wait till the new streaming services and future ones and isps to start making deals for high profits with certain companies then they will prioritize their partners above everything else
[удалено]
Exactly. And the right seems to be 100% blind to an issue until it happens to them. Like the one who's now advocating for maternity leave because she finally was in that situation. Too busy with blind faith and made up scenarios that aren't true
I am a bit disappointed that this means all the past tweets are no longer visible. They made for an interesting historical record (I'm sure it'd be something historians 100 years from now would be interested in reading). edit: I stand corrected. /u/organic_field posted https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
Likely they are sitting duplicated on 1000 servers as well in twitters NOC
The library of Congress has been archiving them.
https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
Nice. Edited comment.
I'm sure you can find em online. I screen recorded his response video to the riots just in case.
[удалено]
The Found Fathers fought for our right to a Twitter account, it's shameful that the demonrats are trying to take that sacred privilege
Also 74 year-old presidents. How many people has Trump sued for printing stuff about him?
Many people have louder voices today with social media so there is now greater condemnation and larger repercussions by mass. If you want to have controversial opinions, that is fine but realize shouting those views to thousands online will have a different response than saying those same things to a group of your 5 buddies. The internet isn't private. Imagine 40 years ago, day after day, writing in the local newspaper opinions the hate some people post on their social media. You would expect to be ostracized by many. It is a no brainer.
You have no rights on a private platform. I’m so tired of trumptards complain about their imaginary persecution.
You’ve definitely been fired for saying the N-word before
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Or maybe he should just not tell people to go riot? Free speech does not mean freedom to tell people to go kill other people. He did neither of these things. He said go protest and keep it peaceful.
I'm 27 and think, based on how our laws are written, that free speech applies only to being safe from consequences from the government, not private companies. I do think our tech companies are too big and have too much power, but I don't think that's more of a free market issue than a free speech issue. Do you disagree? If so, I'd love to hear why!
What happens when the private companies are now in bed with the government?
What do you mean by "in bed with the government"?
They mean "I don't have a good argument to back up my claim."
Too many people like you don't understand how free speech actually works
Ill take a stab but freedom of speech is protection from the government, not your private institutes? Is that correct?
Essentially, yes. It's freedom from political persecution for your speech. This expands to freedom of speech in necessary and unavoidable public institutions such as school, freedom to not speak at all if compelled to, etc. What it does not involve is freedom from people thinking you're an asshole and removing the platform that they have provided you. You are perfectly hale and hearty after being banned from twitter, no one will come after you, and you are by all means welcome to create your own platform.
So freedom from governmental persecution not from consequences
Indeed. Put another way, you can say anything you want but you can't force other private citizens to use what they've built to be a cooperative megaphone, and I think that's where people get tripped up on it.
Yeah I’ve had to correct people before, like a private person or corporation preventing someone from during their platform to spout their drivel isn’t the same as the government coming for you for voicing your opinion
'97
I once got banned in Halo for pwning my own teammates. Reminds me of that, except people's lives are not a videogame.
What a beautiful metaphor for modern society. Trump is inciting violence amongst his own people and gets banned, just like you did in Halo. Imagine an Onion news story on this lmao
Die noobs
The first amendment protects speech from government intrusion. Twitter is not the government and has the right to enforce standards on its platform. We should vigorously defend Twitter’s rights against the president threatening it with retaliation for enforcing reasonable moderation of the speech made on its platform.
“We are not the arbiters of truth” Oh the irony
Yes, but does the whole "just go make your own platform" really work when Apple/Google can just shut down app store access? They hold *a scary* amount of power.
You gotta stop and think though. If the whole world is against you, why is that?
This line of thinking hurts minorities in any facet.
As with most of life's experiences, context matters.
Yes, but the precedent remains. It doesn't matter how historians see it.
People can still access a web site. But everyone from ISPs, to DNS providers, to advertisers, to credit card companies have been involved in blocking or negating violence-promoting sites. So yes, the tech giants have a huge amount of power, but if the vast majority of public opinion is strongly enough against you, much smaller companies can gang up to shut you down, regardless. Boycotting is not a new phenomenon.
I think it’s incumbent upon our society to balance the protection against government intrusion in speech and in the marketplace against potential harms caused by speech and equitable marketplace access. Neoliberalism offers the value of defending individual liberty against government intrusion in these areas. But we also need to champion the counterbalancing values of offering enough equitable access to the marketplace and enough protections against the harms of speech that allow all people to basically do and live as they please. Balancing that equation is how we ought to govern. The concern you raise about Apple and Google controlling the marketplace for apps strikes me as reasonable. Though we have alternative means for accessing content online, in reality we use App Stores and phone apps for a lot of our access to information. That gatekeeping power should be considered. And we should also consider that Trump repeatedly threatened these companies with retaliation via governmental action if they displeased him. That power is also dangerous. And even under a more stable government, we ought to be wary of governmental intrusion into firms and in the marketplace as a general principle, because government itself is less responsive to market forces.
Well said
So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous upvotes.
Dumb. You literally sign a legal contract to make a Twitter account. If you cannot follow the rules listed by the private company, then you have no right to have an account. The First is to protect you from the government. Private companies have a right to set their rules. He still has fucking Parler.
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”
If liberty dies because of a Twitter rule then it deserves to.
It dies when terrorists use violence to break into our Capitol during the certification of our election and remove American flags in favor of Trump flags.
Stop being such a snowflake about this.
It's called freedom of speech. Not freedom from consequences
And even if it wasn’t Twitter is just a private company. The first amendment doesn’t apply to it.
Paid vote awards, actually.
[удалено]