EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago
That's what the tweet says, there are screenshots in the replies.
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.
She posted that tweet more like 11 hours ago. Since that time it has become somewhat infamous - I've seen it in my deliberately not-politicized timeline and separately here on HN. What is the chance their content moderation team hasn't seen it?
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.
> Glorification of violence policy
...
> You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
(https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...)
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.
Which is an observation, and which is a directive? I think that is the key question that Twitter is dodging. They want to editorialize with their opinion as to which is which, but not for everyone.
No, it would not, because generally left-wing people don't spread lies with the intention to dissuade people from voting (quite to the contrary, the left wing is fighting for people to have the right and means to vote) or call for storming the White House and start shooting.
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?
This is why phrases like "we should nuke them from orbit", which might be calls to violence if made by a head of state, are generally seen as satire, because there's no chance of me actually nuking someone from orbit. Context matters.
If you believe your side is the good one and the other is bad, it's probably because it's part of your identity. And that prevents you from thinking about it honestly and results in more polarization. Once you accept they're all full of it, you will think more clearly. And you'll have better dialogue with opposing viewpoints.
But whichever way they interpret it, all that really matters when it comes to fairness is that they are consistent.
If we look at a very non-hypothetical person named Donald Trump, he wrote "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" immediately after "I won't let that happen" and "the Military" and "we will assume control". Without context, the words could be just an opinion or observation, but in the context he used them, that's not a reasonable interpretation. You don't mention sending in the military (who have guns, obviously) and then mention shooting as a total non sequitur in the next sentence.
If somehow improbably he meant it to be an opinion or observation, he phrased it terribly, and Twitter is within their rights to interpret it how he wrote it.