(08-20-2021 05:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 09:52 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.

I'm OK with the option of not giving terrorists a stage. I guess you are Ok with the opposite.

I’ve got no problem with that - I already said that it wasn’t an unreasonable position to have Twitter ban people for actions unrelated to its use.

But there isn’t really a comparison between Twitter banning someone specifically for how they use their product and not banning someone for regardless of how they use their product - there is no connection.

Yet they banned the American Nazi Party, Jared Taylor, Nordic Resistance Group, and a whole slew of others for simply far less than incitement to violence. In fact, they were suspended for their viewpoints.

They banned Paul Nehlen for a single tweet when he posted the official engagement photo, and altering Meghan Markle's face with Cheddar Man's face superimposed on Markle's, captioning the tweet, "Honey does this tie make my face look pale?"

Candace Owens was banned (but lifted) for reposting controversial tweets about white people, and changing races and religions mentioned in the tweets.

Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys were banned for an explicit policy on 'violent extremist groups' -- not for their messaging.

But please, man the defenses of and on behalf of the Taliban. Especially in light of the actions of twitter with regards to the ultra-white wingers for simply 'belonging' to an 'extremist group'.

Twitter's actions are wholly hypocritical. Fundamentally so.

If you are a member of a *bad* extremist group, ban hammer. If you are representing the Taliban, complete opposite.

And yes, the MSM media is dancing a complete jig to cover this **** -- cover it not in the journalistic sense but in the sense of using a pillow until the issue doesnt breathe like some sickos might do to an unwanted baby.

The fact that Trump (whom still has a substantial political impact on this society, whether you like it or him or not) is permabanned while they coddle around the Taliban using it is pathetic.

Especially in light of removing people, say, like the Proud Boys, on the basis of being 'extermist'. Utter hypocritical horseshit. And the MSM doesnt have the fing balls to say it.