zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
I feel really disconnected from what is the online mainstream thought. Trump is a huge embarrassment and this tweet should never come from our president. Twitter is doing some real selective enforcement that doesn't seem even handed or even logical. The Tweet in question vaguely qualifies, and there is much worse stuff being posted to Twitter that more clearly and more demonstratively glorifies violence. Search Twitter for "burn it down" (just a example phrase, but you could pick "shoot the cops" or any number of things) https://twitter.com/search?q=%22burn%20it%20down%22&src=type... and you get https://twitter.com/Pork_Soda_187/status/1266287249261424641 https://twitter.com/katie80980282/status/1266287106147508231 https://twitter.com/hengebeat/status/1266286823480782852

and these are all in the last 5 minutes. Selective enforcement doesn't put Twitter in a good light and doesn't seem like something that is in the best interest of their company. Also it is a bad look that their head of site integrity was saying vile stuff about the other half of America.

I really dislike Trump and will definitely vote against him. I don't get the overwhelming support for actions like this from Twitter.

>>mimika+J9
It's often troubling, but moderation has always been selective.

>>_y5hn+xc
This particular selective moderation is functionally equivalent to Twitter giving their backing to an actual, real-world riot and associated calls to murder cops whilst hiding behind Section 230 in order to avoid any liability. That seems... inadvisable, though obviously popular with the political faction most of their employees come from.

>>makomk+8f
It's not equivalent to that at all. They deleted his Tweet because it explicitly called for gun violence against protestors. That's the ostensible reasoning. Can you see why it might be problematic for the president of the nation to do that?