Trump was temporarily banned. After that was lifted, Trump had two tweets. Twitter responded with the permanent ban.
What was so bad about those two tweets? One said the 75 million people who voted for him are still a force in US politics. The other said he wasn’t going to the inauguration. I was kind of perplexed.
They are making a dog whistle argument. Yep, the tweets look innocuous to non-violent people like me.
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
the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence
The [inauguration] 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.
Regarding the last statement, note that Stone and Flynn both spoke at the rally, and that Trump has the pardon power right up to 11:59 am on Jan 20.
I’m delighted Twitter took him down, I think they made the right call here.
I’m very worried that a private company has this much power to determine “acceptable” speech in the US.
The weird thing is that while they do have a lot of power over you and me, they have no power to muzzle the president. He can call a press conference, issue a press release, or hold a “fireside chat” at any time, and the whole country can learn whatever he wants to say.
So, your solution is … what, to extend the First Amendment to private businesses? Are we doing this for all private businesses, or only certain ones? If it’s only certain ones, how do we decide when 1A does or doesn’t apply? When it starts to apply, does the extension cease to apply upon certain criteria, or is it “once on, always on?”
You sign up for Twitter, you agree to its ToS. If you don’t read the ToS, that’s your problem. If Twitter decides for whatever reason it doesn’t want anyone posting about Monday night’s game between Alabama and Ohio State, guess what: that’s Twitter’s right as a private company. It chose (correctly) not to allow its platform to be used by the President of the United States to promulgate calls for violence and insurrection. It probably should have done that much sooner. It’s decided peaceful democracy > fascism and the violent overthrow of American government, and if it feels like it needs to take steps to head off what it perceives as likely forthcoming actions that engender those actions then that’s its right as a private company. You don’t like that, you can find somewhere else to spout your vile rhetoric or you can start your own website.
Same for this site. The owners of GoActuary can (and likely will at some point) decide what speech is and isn’t acceptable. You agree to that in the ToS when you signed up. You don’t get the right to tell TPTB here what they have to do by virtue of having registered for an account on your own free will. If you don’t like it, you can always go somewhere else or go start your own website.
[There’s a commentary on what would happen if Section 230 got repealed like all the MAGAts want, but I’ll leave that alone for now.]
I said more than 3 years ago that Trump would have been banned from the old AO political forum. This place hasn’t hashed out all the details, yet, but speaking as a mod, GoActuary is not going to allow people to make racist or homophobic remarks, nor to mock the disabled, nor to incite readers to illegal acts of violence.
Yeah in a bubble without the history those two tweets would have been fine, but with the history and what happened on January 6, Donald cant post anything even hinting of his usual brand and it be fine. Hopefully facebook extends this ban past 1/20 and he is never let back on. Trump is a danger regardless of if he is president
the people who are posting that are saying Republicans say businesses can deny people service for things like race, religion, sexual preference; things people are
so why argue when trump is banned for being a fascist, ass hole traitor, things he chose to be
this is the exact reason. You can do all sorts of silly english language things on Twitter and it’s whatever. You start repeating about how extra super smart you are people are saying on camera and people realize you’re a dumbass (unless they’re in too deep and watching from inside the Capitol).
I’m the kind of person who normally says “Here’s a problem … Here’s my solution …” Unfortunately, in this case, I don’t have a solution.
I agree with you that I don’t like anything that looks like gov’t censorship.
OTOH, I don’t think that Twitter is just like GoActuary. Scale matters. Networks matter. The right wing alternative to Twitter is Parler, but Amazon, Apple, and Google won’t treat it like other apps.
In the 19th century, a few business people in Pennsylvania could get together, fund some oil wells, and start selling oil. If you didn’t like their price you could drill your own wells or buy elsewhere. Then, Rockefeller built Standard Oil and people decided they needed new laws.
But, I can’t propose any laws. I don’t even like the idea of having “competing” social media services if they are going to split by political leaning. The big media problem is that it’s too easy to build a political echo chamber and only listen to people who agree with you.
The liberal notion is that in the “free marketplace of ideas”, truth will eventually outrun lies. The people who stormed the capitol accept a big lie, and they can live in a media bubble where it is constantly reinforced. Truth doesn’t have a chance.
I don’t know how to build that free marketplace in the 21st century.
I suppose I could go with the old standby “more education”. I don’t see that happening yet.
Not unusually insightful but it does raise the question at the end, “If Trump decided to do a major live address from the Oval Office, should the networks broadcast it live?”
My first take is that I’d broadcast with a one minute delay. The one minute would allow for chyrons that dispute what he says. It also allows time to decide to pull the plug entirely.
This has happened. MSNBC would broadcast it live and then cut away when it became too ridiculous to dispute false statements. I think half the RNC they were cutting in to dispute false statements from lots of republicans, not just trump.
this is the exact reason. You can do all sorts of silly english language things on Twitter and it’s whatever. You start repeating about how extra super smart you are people are saying on camera and people realize you’re a dumbass (unless they’re in too deep and watching from inside the Capitol).