Trump permanently suspended from Twitter

[Grapevine]

@w4read

2 hours ago, w4read said:

Or will he just create another plattform where the already most crazy and deluted people will be the first to find out about it?

is not about crazy and deluteded people, is about the freedom of speech, he got banned and he didn't break any rule, twitter wanted to shut his month.

I posted above his tweet and that doesn't incite for violence, not even in that certain context, is just a pretext to make him stfu since all libs hate Trump.

 

[Talinn]

25 minutes ago, Grapevine said:

@w4read

is not about crazy and deluteded people, is about the freedom of speech, he got banned and he didn't break any rule, twitter wanted to shut his month.

I posted above his tweet and that doesn't incite for violence, not even in that certain context, is just a pretext to make him stfu since all libs hate Trump.

 

Let's have a story.

A rich powerful person picks up a gun and for twelve years is spinning around a gun in his hands, firing shots into the forest. Trying to scare people with this gun by firing into the air. He attracts a crowd of admirers who love the novelty. Bribing the cops to not arrest him, the rich man is only killing squirrels!  Periodically it kills a squirrel, a bird, it scares off the wildlife. One day the gun kills, I don't know, five-six people and the cops finally stop being bribed by this madman and take his gun away for 12 hours, if he's a responsible gentleman he can keep the gun.

Soon after the richman decides to shooting the gun off into the air because it is in his blood, he cannot help himself. It doesn't cause any immediate harm but the cops want no more squirrels or people dead. They take the gun away.

Why is this so hard to understand? 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Talinn

[Ves]

1 hour ago, Grapevine said:

@w4read

is not about crazy and deluteded people, is about the freedom of speech, he got banned and he didn't break any rule, twitter wanted to shut his month.

I posted above his tweet and that doesn't incite for violence, not even in that certain context, is just a pretext to make him stfu since all libs hate Trump.

 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Twitter explicitly gives their reasoning behind their decision to ban him in the blog post. It makes more sense to explicitly argue why you believe the factors they listed fall outside of Twitter's 'Glorification of Violence' policy (also linked in the blog post) instead of a bunch of unnecessary posturing. I don't understand what you expect to gain from telling people to 'just admit they hate free speech' and asking, in bad-faith, to tell you how exactly Trump's tweets violate Twitter's TOS.

[Forestluv]

The user @Grapevine has been given a temporary suspension for multiple warnings (from multiple moderators) of verbal abuse, misuse of the DM system and using multiple accounts. 

As a general statement: part of self-actualization and personal development is taking personal responsibility. It's about facing aspects of ourselves and working through it - even when those aspects are uncomfortable. Behaviors such as wearing masks and blaming others to avoid personal accountability is the opposite of personal growth. Avoiding, repressing, pretending and portraying onto others are clogged pipes that block us from purifying ourselves of conditioned toxins and realizing our higher nature. I know what it's like to be uncomfortable in my own skin, being reactive and doing things like having multiple identities to pretend I'm someone else. And I know it's not easy to uncover, discover and discard such things. 

And it is disruptive at a community level. Ideally, we are a community of imperfect beings that support each other toward healing, growth, realization and expansion. Creating multiple accounts to play different characters or to bypass previous warnings is disingenuous to oneself and the community. And it is disruptive to forming a cohesive community.

I hope that every person that joins actualized can expand their conscious through healing, personal growth, cognitive development, transcendence etc. Yet to do so, there needs to be an environment in which such growth can manifest. 

[Loving Radiance]

9 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

wearing masks

How does one go about recognizing the masks one wears?

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Loving Radiance said:

How does one go about recognizing the masks one wears?

Introspection from within and extrospection from those that have a higher level of development. There are various methods and environments for this, yet it can be challenging and uncomfortable. Intention seems to be an essential element. 

And the layers keep going deeper and deeper. 

[Loving Radiance]

@Forestluv ?

Rings true to me.

[The Don]

For those on the left, Big Tech is not your friend. They might project the illusion that they're on your side when in fact, they're not.

Big Tech only cares about power. Their goal is to become much powerful than the government.

In some sense, Big Tech is much powerful than the government itself.

Big Tech must be regulated by the government.

What they did to President Trump is simply unacceptable.

It doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a leftist. We have to agree on certain principles.

Edited January 13, 2021 by The Don

[Sempiternity]

@The Don  No, will not agree, like at all. Society needs checks in place or some people will not stop till it's all destroyed. Some people just want to watch the world burn. Just like we stop criminals and murders from harming other people in society, Trump needed to be stopped from trying to literally stop democracy and destroy this country. Speech that kills, is unacceptable. Period.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, The Don said:

Big Tech must be regulated by the government.

Judging by, well - everything, I don't think Trump would like that either  

[DocWatts]

49 minutes ago, The Don said:

For those on the left, Big Tech is not your friend. They might project the illusion that they're on your side when in fact, they're not.

Big Tech only cares about power. Their goal is to become much powerful than the government.

In some sense, Big Tech is much powerful than the government itself.

Big Tech must be regulated by the government.

Obviously Big Tech companies must be regulated, but be careful about critiquing Big Tech from Below (rather than from Above). The reason for regulating Big Tech is because of the immense amount of Power they wield, and also because many of them are Monopolies that society has come to depend on. Social Media platforms have become breeding grounds for the spread of misinformation such as Conspiracy Theories, in addition to the problematic way that online Echo Chambers reinforce and amplify divisions in society; the disastrous consequences of which we've seen unfolding over the past few years. A critique from above would advocate for treating Social Media platforms as Public Utilities, and finding policies to regulate the spread of misinformation, and devising strategies for pushing back against the radicalizing effect of online Echo Chambers.

Bitching and moaning about Trump finally getting banned from Social Media platforms, after years of propagating misinformation and advocating for Political Violence, is a critique from Below.

Edited January 13, 2021 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

Here's the problem for right-wingers. If Big Tech is regulated by government -- which I am all for -- Trump and his racist MAGA douches would still get banned. Even faster actually. Government has laws against racism.

If Twitter was properly regulated by government, Trump would have been banned years ago. With government regulation, platform ToS will become more strict and will be more strictly enforced. Which is bad news for devils, of which the right-wing is full.

When the right wing cries about free speech and censorship what they're really crying about is not being able to continue their devilry unobstructed. Nice try, but we see through your bullshit.

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Here's the problem for right-wingers. If Big Tech is regulated by government -- which I am all for -- Trump and his racist MAGA douches would still get banned. Even faster actually. Government has laws against racism.

If Twitter was properly regulated by government, Trump would have been banned years ago. With government regulation, platform ToS will become more strict and will be more strictly enforced. Which is bad news for devils, of which the right-wing is full.

When the right wing cries about free speech and censorship what they're really crying about is not being able to continue their devilry unobstructed. Nice try, but we see through your bullshit.

I don't believe this. I think the opposite will happen. 

If the government begins to control big tech companies, there will be massive lag in getting anything done because of lobbying and since the government is being controlled by right wing (depending on the party of the president elected or the senate) it will buckle under the pressure and give in to the demands of the president.

I think the president has a significant power in the government. 

[Leo Gura]

48 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

since the government is being controlled by right wing (depending on the party of the president elected or the senate) it will buckle under the pressure and give in to the demands of the president.

Even when the gov is controlled by Republicans, we still have regulations in place at the federal level against racism, hate speech, terrorist conspiracies, etc.

Once the government's policies on policing online platforms are voted upon and set it place, they will be more strict than what we have now, where Twitter, Facebook, and YT are pretty lax with enforcement because they don't want to be labeled censors.

Once online norms are established at the federal level, democratically, there will be much less squeamishness in enforcing them. The problem right now for these platforms is that they have no democratically established rules to rely on. So they must make up their own rules which don't have universal buy-in. This will change in the future.

[Forestluv]

AOC calls out Zuckerberg as being partially responsible for radicalizing users.

 

[Lyubov]

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

AOC calls out Zuckerberg as being partially responsible for radicalizing users.

 

part 1 is worth watching as well for some background into how Zuck thinks but this part goes into detail about how facebook played a role in the Myanmar genocide. He definitely is responsible. I don't think he had the foresight at the time to see what he created but it's apparent now he played a role. 

[Forestluv]

In the week after Trump was muzzled, misinformation about election fraud tumbled by 73 percent.

https://www.cnet.com/news/after-twitter-banned-trump-misinformation-plummeted-says-report/

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Deplatforming toxic people like Alex Jones and Trump definitely works to minimize their message. It's hard to argue with that.

One of the biggest problems with Trump was that he was given so much free media. Billions in free media. This much air time spread a lot of toxicity and took attention away from important issues.

The problem I see is that these platforms might decide to re-platform him in the future. I'm skeptical that these will truly be lifetime bans.

[Preety_India]

The question is, is it enough? 

[Arcangelo]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

The question is, is it enough? 

The question is who decides what's hate speech and what isn't.

For example I got in trouble for saying that misandrists exist. It was labeled as hate speech.

That's what I don't like: When someone states simple scientific facts and someone else decides it is hate speech. Fuck that.

 

Arc