zlacker

"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+(OP)
> "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+27
Property damage is absolutely a violation of people's rights, which is why property was added to the constitution. Outrage does not negate a business owners rights.

>>rayine+27
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?

>>rayine+27
There is no equivalence between property damage equivalent to killing, much as there is no equivalence between a random twitter user “calling for the guillotines” and the commander of the armed forces threatening to unleash a massacre. It is beyond bad faith to argue otherwise.