Twitter allowed Trump to speak right up until the moment it no longer benefited them. The hypocrisy is clear regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
From another perspective, they allowed him to speak until he gathered a violent mob and sent them to the Capitol...
And someone who denies this idea would think "It's not his fault the mob was violent!" and/or "Only a few of the mob was violent!" or "Antifa false-flag!"
This is a great response to what happened. Twitter is perhaps justified in banning Trump, when there were no more options. The Parler move on the other hand was a cowardly abuse of power disguised as a display of virtue - and it will be seen as such by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.
Twitter is a net negative force in the world but Jack Dorsey is a principled man. Maybe he can fix it.
The justification they used for banning him was based upon mind-reading and weasel words.
"the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences"
So can any number of statements from Democrat politicians and media allies. In fact, in view of the antifa/blm riots, arsons, and looting, it is reasonable to conclude that they were.
"is being received by a number of his supporters"
Who? Where? When? How do they know? And so what? One can't be responsible if a supporter or fan misconstrues some innocuous statement like "I'm not going to this event".
"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement"
Again, same thing. We can find numerous statements that are outright calls to action from Democrat politicians ("fight them in the streets", "kick them", "create a crowd", "tell them they're not welcome anywhere", etc) as well as tacit support by media allies calling riots peaceful, and hey, if they turn violent, sometimes that's just what it takes.
The simple fact is Twitter, and big tech, supports Democrats and wants them to win. This is seen not only by their actions, but leaked communications from Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others. Remember the Googlers crying in the hallways, or given the equivalent of grief counseling after the last election? Not to mention their political donations are public record, not only corporate and PACs but employees.
The simple fact is there is a standard one side is held to, on which the other side is allowed massive leeway and benefit of doubt, on the simple basis of politics.
And the Parler move WAS cowardly. One can easily find many threats of riot, violence, insurrection, assassination, and mass purging of undesirables on Twitter et al, yet because the decision makers at those companies agree, they're allowed to stand.
If Trump did anything positive in his four years in office, it is exposing what tech and media elites and decision makers really think of those they purport to serve.
I am actually sympathetic to the Trump ban. I think what he did was pretty close to inciting violence, close enough, specially in the hindsight, that a temporary ban was justified. I agree on the hypocrisy of the Antif/etc stuff.
An absurd false equivalency. Trump lied to a crowd of people that the election was stolen, and directed them to "go to the capital" and "be strong", to attempt to overturn the legal results of a democratic election, and his supporters... did exactly that, and attempted to storm the capital, killing and brutalizing police officers and others, while he enjoyed watching it on TV, not telling his supporters to leave the until hours later, and still telling them "you are special, we love you". There is not a single example of any event at all comparable to that.
As a Georgian voter in Fulton County, it's not a lie. My vote was illegally nullified by the county Democratic Party through fake ballots.
Listen to the entire quote. Peacefully is said just before protest.
In addition, it's clear from the video outside the Capital the CP will in on this - they just stepped aside and let the mob run up to the doors of the capital.
There are literally dozens of examples of high-ranking Democrats, not or mention the liberal punditry, claiming the 2016 election was illegitimate and that direct action should be taken against the president, his staffers, and his voters.
Yet, those were not only allowed to stand, they were actually amplified by social media.
You can lie to yourself if you wish, but the internet exists and anyone who wishes to do so can find these examples in less than a minute.
He seems to be saying he's not comfortable with his company being as powerful as it is, and that he hopes to reduce that power. If he means it, it's an extraordinary position for a tech CEO to take.
Being the first major platform banning Trump and probably paying the biggest price for it comparing to everyone else in SV, I assume Jack was smart enough to anticipate outcome of his decision is negative: chain reaction from other SV companies, backlash from public opinion left and right, and big drop on stock price. The negative impact on his power, reputation and wealth will be likely significant for a very long time.
I don't like Twitter or its handling of censorship overall, but I appreciate someone with power at such level is going against personal interest in almost every aspect during their decision making, which seems to me is very rare in American business and political elites today.
15 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 41.8 ms ] threadAnd someone who denies this idea would think "It's not his fault the mob was violent!" and/or "Only a few of the mob was violent!" or "Antifa false-flag!"
The irony is too much.
Twitter is a net negative force in the world but Jack Dorsey is a principled man. Maybe he can fix it.
The justification they used for banning him was based upon mind-reading and weasel words.
"the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences"
So can any number of statements from Democrat politicians and media allies. In fact, in view of the antifa/blm riots, arsons, and looting, it is reasonable to conclude that they were.
"is being received by a number of his supporters"
Who? Where? When? How do they know? And so what? One can't be responsible if a supporter or fan misconstrues some innocuous statement like "I'm not going to this event".
"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement"
Again, same thing. We can find numerous statements that are outright calls to action from Democrat politicians ("fight them in the streets", "kick them", "create a crowd", "tell them they're not welcome anywhere", etc) as well as tacit support by media allies calling riots peaceful, and hey, if they turn violent, sometimes that's just what it takes.
The simple fact is Twitter, and big tech, supports Democrats and wants them to win. This is seen not only by their actions, but leaked communications from Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others. Remember the Googlers crying in the hallways, or given the equivalent of grief counseling after the last election? Not to mention their political donations are public record, not only corporate and PACs but employees.
The simple fact is there is a standard one side is held to, on which the other side is allowed massive leeway and benefit of doubt, on the simple basis of politics.
And the Parler move WAS cowardly. One can easily find many threats of riot, violence, insurrection, assassination, and mass purging of undesirables on Twitter et al, yet because the decision makers at those companies agree, they're allowed to stand.
If Trump did anything positive in his four years in office, it is exposing what tech and media elites and decision makers really think of those they purport to serve.
Listen to the entire quote. Peacefully is said just before protest.
In addition, it's clear from the video outside the Capital the CP will in on this - they just stepped aside and let the mob run up to the doors of the capital.
Yet, those were not only allowed to stand, they were actually amplified by social media.
You can lie to yourself if you wish, but the internet exists and anyone who wishes to do so can find these examples in less than a minute.
He announced it a year ago. Who has moved to work there?
Strategically how could this work for Twitter?
I don't like Twitter or its handling of censorship overall, but I appreciate someone with power at such level is going against personal interest in almost every aspect during their decision making, which seems to me is very rare in American business and political elites today.