(08-19-2021 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 07:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is just a clear conflation here, and it’s annoying how obviously this post is just red meat stuff.

Twitter suspended Trump for how he used their platform. It’s not like he tweeted sporadically and about innocuous issues.

Unless the Taliban are actively tweeting about stoning people, they aren’t using the platform in a way that Twitter feels violates its terms. So you either are OK with Twitter banning people regardless of platform use or you’re OK with Twitter not policing any content on their platform.

I don’t think either are totally unreasonable positions, but this is a post that is obviously meant to just stir things up.

Twitter suspended Trump for not accepting election results. They did not suspend anybody who did not accept the results of 2016.

In the meantime, the Taliban can and does murder and maim with impunity. But as long as they only claim that Allah is guiding their mayhem, Twitter is good with that.

From Twitter:

Quote: 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.

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. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.
The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case...


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.

And again, identify those tweets and then you can criticize Twitter for not treating the Taliban the same as Trump. Until then, let me know which option you’re ok with.

Wow, Americans defending the Taliban. Hooray for you.

Your quote proves that Twitter chose to interpret some tweets as inciting violence. I don't think they did. I think it is an interpretation of denying the election.

I guess you will just have to show me where/how he incited violence. I want to see the words where he told people to be violent. I will not do your research for you.

In any case, it does not give a free pass to the Taliban, a course you seem to back.

My personal opinion is that "Death to Unbelievers" is worse than "The election was stolen". I guess we will just have to differ on that. I will remain staunchly anti-Taliban, no matter how nicely they say they want to put the whole world under Sharia law.