zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

>>partia+uY
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.

>>phailh+I41
How about this one:

https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?...

>>misiti+N51
You could say requesting dox is a form of violence. But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people. It's reasonable that a policy of removing tweets that glorify violence would catch one but not the other.

>>adamch+M61
''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.

>>lukaa+Fe1
> ''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.

That's actually not true. There are legal bounds to what violence he can and cannot threaten. The President is not a dictator, in which case you would be correct. And we don't have to wait for a court to decide that the order is illegal. Members of the military are actually supposed to refuse illegal orders, not obey them blindly like good little Nazis.