(08-20-2021 05:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 09:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Clearly I’m not defending the Taliban. And you know that.

[

Quote: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.

I’m not defending Twitter’s decision here about Trump - I’m pointing out that they clearly banned him for his tweets. That was just an excerpt from a rather long post explaining their rationale. Maybe you can look up something.

And I clearly am not giving a “free pass” to the Taliban. This is why the post was cheap and shallow - it clearly conflates two issues for anyone who actually takes a step back. But it lets people like you make a false argument that someone is supporting the Taliban if they point out the shallowness of it.

Once again, point to the tweets that the Taliban has made that you think are against Twitter’s policy, or indicate that you support Twitter banning people/groups for their activities outside of Twitter.

YOU point to the tweets in which you think Trump incited violence.

I think it is a matter of interpretation. For example, some years ago I was giving a talk to a group of about 600 people. As an icebreaker, I mentioned that I was divorced "but would rather be widowed". Now if I made that statement today, Twitter could CHOOSE to interpret it as me advertising that I was in the market for hit man. Then they could CHOOSE to ban me for it. Then Lad could CHOOSE to cite that as evidence that I had in fact tried to hire a hit man.

(Aside: the audience laughed, I had a very good and memorable presentation, and today my ex and I are friendly - and she is still alive)

Show me where he said "Go beat up people, burn their homes, destroy property, kill a few". (Aside: sounds like a BLM peaceful protest, doesn't it?) If all he said was "fight for your rights, don't accept the tainted results", well then, that is very similar to what lots of people were saying in 2016. Very similar to what politicians on both sides of the aisle say routinely.

But if YOU want to change MY mind, YOU need to show ME the tweets.

I am not on Twitter, but I think if they are going to discriminate and ban anybody, it should be murderous organizations like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Biko Haram, etc.