Twitter permanently bans Donald Trump

Gnarls

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
3,983
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....


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

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
36,329
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

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
3,983
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.
 

Gnarls

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
3,983
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
36,329
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
19,849
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

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
23,637
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.
 

Gnarls

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
3,983
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
 
Last edited:

Vorastra

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
4,309
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

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
4,309
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

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
32,798
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

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
4,309
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.
 
Top