> They banned Trump because he incited a fucking riot on the nation's capitol and even after seeing the consequences of this incitement - in the form of a dead supporters of his and potentially members of our government being killed by an angry mob - Trump doubled down like he always does.
So what should happen to social media companies who supported BLM and the riots that ensued? Should they be banned? What about social media companies role in the color revolutions?
> Yishan's entire thread boils down to "social media companies don't give a shit about ideology until it manifests as an actual threat to public safety". I'm confused how you weren't able to glean that from his thread.
See the above comment.
> We absolutely censor libraries. Currently large portions of the country are obsessed with throwing out LGBT literature that kids might have access to. I'm sure you can guess as to why that is.
We talking libraries or elementary schools? Big difference.
> That doesn't make sense. For social media companies, engagement = money and having trolls, Trump, and outrage clicks is certainly more profitable than not having those things.
It makes sense if the advertisers don't like it. Advertisers aren't just interested in numbers. They are also interested in branding.
> Sometimes good business sense aligns with doing the right thing.
Most times good business sense aligns with doing the wrong thing.
Just in case you were wondering. Not a fan of Trump. Not a fan of the left or right.
Who cares? But isn't that even more of a reason not to ban someone? To ban a democratically elected president of the united states. Quite dystopian. To have people supporting it, sad. Also, how many people died due to trump's "riots". How many people died from social media company supported BLM riots? It's infinitely more actually.
> Please let us know if you've found any folks with 80m followers that have been left free to coordinate violence on social media platforms.
Social media platforms itself have. That was my point. They were part of the color revolution propaganda machine a decade ago.
> Schools have libraries, it's not a big difference.
It is a big difference if an elementary school library is for young children. As opposed to one for the general public.
> Well now its you who could've saved us a lot of characters and just said "I'm one of those guys that thinks they're non-ideological, but here's my obvious rightward bias anyways"
Rightward? Hilarious. The only comments I've had flagged here are what people would consider "left leaning" comments. I'm just anti-hypocrite and commmon sense type of guy. The type that the extremists hate.
> Also, how many people died due to trump's "riots". How many people died from social media company supported BLM riots? It's infinitely more actually.
1. "Infinitely more"? Are you sure you want to be so irresponsible with your language? Infinity people died? You're starting to go off the deep end here. 25 people died in 2020. [1] And as the commenter you replied to pointed out, they did ban accounts. You are not acknowledging this, and you are in bad faith suggesting that "everyone got a pass on BLM". False.
2. This is not just about deaths, though it is the trigger. Trump did and continues to encourage the overturning of elections in the US. He continues to claim that the current president is illegitimate. The former President is repeatedly telling everyone with the utmost urgency that the entire country has been "stolen," and that "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." What do you think his followers will do in response?
We saw what they were willing to do on Jan 6. They didn't attack shops, they hit the seat of government with the explicit intent of stopping the election. We now know there were armed groups waiting to swoop in. Why do you think Twitter is obligated to continue to amplify his rhetoric?
> To ban a democratically elected president of the united states. Quite dystopian.
Actually the opposite - Trump did and said many things that would have gotten literally anyone else banned, and Twitter literally had to make a special exception in their rules for him because of it.
This is the old "when you're used to supremacy, equality feels like oppression" situation in action. Trump got more slack than anyone else ever would have, and when they finally did come down conservatives are still mad that it was "biased" and "unfair" somehow.
tbh I think the potential for retaliation likely also stayed Twitter's hand - if they had enforced the rules equally while he was still president, he likely would have found ways to retaliate against them.
