Twitter permanently bans Donald Trump

[Gnarls]

Weird!

Even the Fox News story only references that tweet - it's repeated a couple of times but only that tweet is referenced...woulda thought the oppo would throw a few more examples to illustrate their point....

Pelosi’s tweet declaring 2016 election was 'hijacked' resurfaces

A resurfaced May 2017 tweet from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has led to calls for consistency from Twitter as the social media giant continues its efforts to crack down on those skeptical of the results of the 2020 presidential election.

www.fox29.com

Haven't seen the Fox story so can't comment. Still seems like you're wilfully missing the point here.

 

[AfricanTech]

Haven't seen the Fox story so can't comment. Still seems like you're wilfully missing the point here.

I'm not (wilfully missing the - I presume 'the' not 'three' - point)

Trump wasn't banned for a singled Tweet - this is why he was banned

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.

None of those elements are present in Pelosi's tweet.

It's simply not comparable

 

[Gnarls]

I'm not (wilfully missing the - I presume 'the' not 'three' - point)

Trump wasn't banned for a singled Tweet - this is why he was banned



None of those elements are present in Pelosi's tweet.

It's simply not comparable

Still missing the point I see.

 

[AfricanTech]

Still missing the point I see.

Uh! Your post consisted of the word 'awkies' - what was the point you were trying to make?

 

[Gnarls]

Uh! Your post consisted of the word 'awkies' - what was the point you were trying to make?

Consistent enforcement of their rules. You're the one making this about them banning Trump. I've clarified this numerous times but you do you!

 

[AfricanTech]

Consistent enforcement of their rules. You're the making this about them banning Trump. I've clarified this numerous times but you do you!

Nope, let me break it down for you

That little clip starts off with:

(with slight shortening)

“A resurfaced tweet from Pelosi has led to calls for consistency from Twitter”

It then shows Pelosi’s Tweet from 2017 asserting that the election in 2016 was hijacked

Then the author inserts the text “The social media giant continues to silence those skeptical of the results of the 2020 presidential election”, and this is the clever bit, immediately follows that with “Twitter slapped Trump’s tweets that challenged President-elect Biden’s victory with various labels” “And even temporarily suspending him following last week’s riots on Capitol Hill”

Do you see what the authors of that YouTube clip did there? They took the first statement “silence those* skeptical” and link it to an outcome (suspension) that isn’t a result of skepticism – it’s the result of another activity (incitement). By cleverly juxtaposing, they build an argument that seems valid but actually has no foundation.

Skepticism of the result did not lead to Trump being banned; incitement to further violence is why he was banned.

The video then continuous and states that critics have called on Twitter to respond to Pelosi’s falsehood implying that she should have been banned too (except that Trump wasn’t banned for ‘falsehood’ he was banned for incitement).

That video is extremely disingenuous – Goebbels worthy imo

* by the way, they don’t tell us who ‘those’ who have been silenced are, they only mention Trump

PS: I'm not sure when Twitter started slapping "fact checking" labels on Tweets; if they were doing it at the time of Pelosi's tweet I'd agree that they probably should have slapped it with one of their labels too.

 

[Solarion]

Incitement is a viewpoint?

Oh no incitement is never a view point its a call to arms or violent uprising. I was more talking in the context of Pelosi's statement on twitter about a hijacked election vs the same with Trumps message. It was ok then but somehow unacceptable now.

 

[rietrot]

How Facebook Incubated the Insurrection​

I'll wait here for fb to be banned from google and apple and all their payment portals etc cancelled

Facebook is interesting. Poor Mark seems to be the outcast of silicon valley so I kinda want to support him, but then again he is also the worst one of them all at times.

 

[rietrot]

Incitement is a viewpoint?

Yes.

What else is it?

 

[rietrot]

Oh no incitement is never a view point its a call to arms or violent uprising. I was more talking in the context of Pelosi's statement on twitter about a hijacked election vs the same with Trumps message. It was ok then but somehow unacceptable now.

Most of us learn this as kids.

Have your parents ever asked you, if your friends jump into the fire, will you do it too?

That's all incitement is. One guy telling others to jump into the fire. People don't have to listen, they have their own agency and can decide for themselves if they wish to do wrong.

Doing something wrong is ultimately the real crime. Not just talking about it(incitement.)

Either way this is pretty much irrelevant as Trump explicitly said be peaceful.

 

[Vorastra]

It was always about Trump and his supporters.

 

[Gnarls]

Nope, let me break it down for you

That little clip starts off with:

(with slight shortening)

“A resurfaced tweet from Pelosi has led to calls for consistency from Twitter”

It then shows Pelosi’s Tweet from 2017 asserting that the election in 2016 was hijacked

Then the author inserts the text “The social media giant continues to silence those skeptical of the results of the 2020 presidential election”, and this is the clever bit, immediately follows that with “Twitter slapped Trump’s tweets that challenged President-elect Biden’s victory with various labels” “And even temporarily suspending him following last week’s riots on Capitol Hill”

Do you see what the authors of that YouTube clip did there? They took the first statement “silence those* skeptical” and link it to an outcome (suspension) that isn’t a result of skepticism – it’s the result of another activity (incitement). By cleverly juxtaposing, they build an argument that seems valid but actually has no foundation.

Skepticism of the result did not lead to Trump being banned; incitement to further violence is why he was banned.

The video then continuous and states that critics have called on Twitter to respond to Pelosi’s falsehood implying that she should have been banned too (except that Trump wasn’t banned for ‘falsehood’ he was banned for incitement).

That video is extremely disingenuous – Goebbels worthy imo

* by the way, they don’t tell us who ‘those’ who have been silenced are, they only mention Trump

PS: I'm not sure when Twitter started slapping "fact checking" labels on Tweets; if they were doing it at the time of Pelosi's tweet I'd agree that they probably should have slapped it with one of their labels too.

Nope still missing the point!

/Edit
Thanks for breaking down the video example that I posted. I did watch it you know. LMFAO

 

[STS]

How Facebook Incubated the Insurrection​

I'll wait here for fb to be banned from google and apple and all their payment portals etc cancelled

Facebook hosts things other than just right-wing extremists, unlike Gab, Parler and 8Chan.

It's like banning all cars on the road when the problem is tanks.

 

[STS]

Hmm freedom of expression, except where it disagrees with my view point then it's blocked.

Can't wait to see you defend Malema next month with as much vigor

 

[Vorastra]

Skepticism of the result did not lead to Trump being banned; incitement to further violence is why he was banned.

A thing he literally did not do.
The two Tweets that got him banned, since they were the ones deleted, literally said to respect police and the second literally told people to calm down and go home.

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

 

[Vorastra]

Can't wait to see you defend Malema next month with as much vigor

Free speech doesn't cover incitement of violence.

 

[STS]

Free speech doesn't cover incitement of violence.

How does what is being posted on Parler and Gab differ to what Malema says?

 

[Vorastra]

How does what is being posted on Parler and Gab differ to what Malema says?

Read my comment again and you'll get the answer.
Oh, and Antifa organise using Twitter, and that the Capitol Building storming has now been shown to have been organised using Facebook groups.
But you know, muh Gab and Parler.

 

[STS]

Read my comment again and you'll get the answer.
Oh, and Antifa organise using Twitter, and that the Capitol Building storming has now been shown to have been organised using Facebook groups.
But you know, muh Gab and Parler.

Comparing Gab to Twitter is like comparing a mall to a military base

 

[Vorastra]

Comparing Gab to Twitter is like comparing a mall to a military base

Pretending one is worse or different than the other because one is full of opinions and people you don't like just shows that you'll make excuses and deferments to benefit your talking point.