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
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712

EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago

>>formal+C51
"Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.

I don't really even think property damage should be included in the definition of "violence" and maybe Twitter agrees with me.

She also didn't say what to burn down. Trump was very clear that looters are who he wanted shot. Burn it down is a common saying that can mean anything from literally burning stuff to just tearing down a system in order to rebuild.

>>Miner4+8g1
> "Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.

That's the kind of thing that results in the insidious left-wing bias of sites like Twitter. Moderators who don't believe that property damage is a blatant violation of peoples' rights, but do believe peoples' rights are violated by mere words alone, and moderating in accordance with such views.

>>rayine+an1
Let me make sure I understand your position properly - are you saying that it is insidious left-sing bias to believe that people's rights can be violated by mere words alone?

The entire purpose of Section 230 is to provide protection against civil liability for platforms who publish mere words from their users. Is your position, then, that if we remove the insidious left-wing bias from our political system, there's no need for Section 230 because platforms can never be liable for the mere words that they republish?

Are all of the commentators who are asking for Twitter's Section 230 protections to be removed, including the president, part of an insidious left-wing conspiracy?