Sorry. That wasn't quite right either. Here is the thread from the start:
Sometimes the Omega Event emerges from the confluence of many unrelated factors. When it does, it is wholly different from anything you’ve encountered.
"After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things.
We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.
Overview
On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.
After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
Assessment
We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including: President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so." - Twitter
Exactly. It's political nonsense. Having the marketplace of ideas controlled by fascist morons is dangerous.
Sure, anyone can say that up is down and black is white and Biden is more corrupt than Trump. But the simple fact is that you don't have anything that Biden has ever done or said that is within a million miles of, "I would like you to do us a favor though....", and "Find me 11,000 votes." And few dozen/hundred other things....
And by the way, noted that you have no explanation/defense for the GA 11,000 votes "request."
You want an explanation, here it is. Trump was likely frustrated that he wasn’t winning the election and with the funny stuff going on with the numbers, likely wanted a recount. Also if you have a problem with Trump saying that, do you have a problem with Joe Biden saying “If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black”? I mean that isn’t within a million miles of saying “Find me 11,000 votes.”… its 2 million farther. The double standard is insane.
Wow, that's a horrendous explanation. Asking for a recount is not the same thing as asking to find 11,000 votes. Additionally, even if he didn't explicitly ask for votes (which he did, multiple times), the President shouldn't be on the phone with State officials asking for a recount in the first place. Again, more mob crap, the most powerful person in the world clearly and personally pressuring state officials about election results he didn't like (and, as we've seen beyond a shadow of a doubt, had NO actual fraudulent evidence about).
In the hour-long conversation on Jan. 2, President Trump repeatedly tried to get Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to alter the outcome of the presidential vote.
TRUMP: "And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
And he goes on to ask for ~11,000 votes multiple more times during the call.
Last but not least, you're comparing this to Biden arguably making a racially insensitive remark? Election stealing versus Biden essentially saying (somewhat refreshingly in a PC world): "Hey African Americans, get your heads our of your as*** if you've watched Trump's racist a** and are STILL voting for him!"
A bit disrespectful of blacks? Sure, maybe (although I completely agree with the sentiment, ditto for latinos). Equivalent to election stealing? Please.
This is pretty weak. He shows some ignorance citing two of the worst examples of free speech history. First, he cites the "fire in a crowded theater" myth, a standard that has been overturned in American law and was used to squash protesters in one of the worst periods of authoritarianism in America. Then he cites Germany banning Nazi speech. But Germany had no freedom of speech right to begin with, so this wasn't an "Omega Event," and some Nazi speech was banned before the Nazis took over, so it doesn't even work. Bad start. Then it boils down to "they believed he incited violence and they had to act quickly." Which was true but I'm not sure it's still relevant as to whether he should be allowed on the platform today.
"After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things.
We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.
Overview
On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.
After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
Assessment
We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This determination is based on a number of factors, including: President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th. The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol. The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so." - Twitter
Exactly. It's political nonsense. Having the marketplace of ideas controlled by fascist morons is dangerous.
If you read Yishan's tweet thread, you find that Twitter's stated reason is a bit disingenuous. But it has nothing to do with fascism or the control of ideas. That's not what Twitter cares about.
This is pretty weak. He shows some ignorance citing two of the worst examples of free speech history. First, he cites the "fire in a crowded theater" myth, a standard that has been overturned in American law and was used to squash protesters in one of the worst periods of authoritarianism in America. Then he cites Germany banning Nazi speech. But Germany had no freedom of speech right to begin with, so this wasn't an "Omega Event," and some Nazi speech was banned before the Nazis took over, so it doesn't even work. Bad start. Then it boils down to "they believed he incited violence and they had to act quickly." Which was true but I'm not sure it's still relevant as to whether he should be allowed on the platform today.
I think you missed his point. He is saying this was not about free speech at all. Nor was it about the exceptions to free speech.
Whether Trump should be allowed back on is another discussion. But it will be governed by the same motivation Twitter had for removing him in the first place.
Yishan knows how these decisions are made. Read carefully to find the real motivation.
This is pretty weak. He shows some ignorance citing two of the worst examples of free speech history. First, he cites the "fire in a crowded theater" myth, a standard that has been overturned in American law and was used to squash protesters in one of the worst periods of authoritarianism in America. Then he cites Germany banning Nazi speech. But Germany had no freedom of speech right to begin with, so this wasn't an "Omega Event," and some Nazi speech was banned before the Nazis took over, so it doesn't even work. Bad start. Then it boils down to "they believed he incited violence and they had to act quickly." Which was true but I'm not sure it's still relevant as to whether he should be allowed on the platform today.
I think you missed his point. He is saying this was not about free speech at all. Nor was it about the exceptions to free speech.
Whether Trump should be allowed back on is another discussion. But it will be governed by the same motivation Twitter had for removing him in the first place.
Yishan knows how these decisions are made. Read carefully to find the real motivation.
Of course it's about free speech, and the limits thereof.
Yishan didn't work at Twitter, and as I pointed out, his knowledge of history is a bit lacking. I don't really get anything out of his mostly obvious speculation.
I think you missed his point. He is saying this was not about free speech at all. Nor was it about the exceptions to free speech.
Whether Trump should be allowed back on is another discussion. But it will be governed by the same motivation Twitter had for removing him in the first place.
Yishan knows how these decisions are made. Read carefully to find the real motivation.
Of course it's about free speech, and the limits thereof.
Yishan didn't work at Twitter, and as I pointed out, his knowledge of history is a bit lacking. I don't really get anything out of his mostly obvious speculation.
It had zero to do with free speech or its limits. It didn't even have to do with inciting a riot. It had to do with the threat to Twitter itself.
You want an explanation, here it is. Trump was likely frustrated that he wasn’t winning the election and with the funny stuff going on with the numbers, likely wanted a recount. Also if you have a problem with Trump saying that, do you have a problem with Joe Biden saying “If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black”? I mean that isn’t within a million miles of saying “Find me 11,000 votes.”… its 2 million farther. The double standard is insane.
Wow, that's a horrendous explanation. Asking for a recount is not the same thing as asking to find 11,000 votes. Additionally, even if he didn't explicitly ask for votes (which he did, multiple times), the President shouldn't be on the phone with State officials asking for a recount in the first place. Again, more mob crap, the most powerful person in the world clearly and personally pressuring state officials about election results he didn't like (and, as we've seen beyond a shadow of a doubt, had NO actual fraudulent evidence about).
TRUMP: "And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
And he goes on to ask for ~11,000 votes multiple more times during the call.
Last but not least, you're comparing this to Biden arguably making a racially insensitive remark? Election stealing versus Biden essentially saying (somewhat refreshingly in a PC world): "Hey African Americans, get your heads our of your as*** if you've watched Trump's racist a** and are STILL voting for him!"
A bit disrespectful of blacks? Sure, maybe (although I completely agree with the sentiment, ditto for latinos). Equivalent to election stealing? Please.
You're thinking like a Democrat... You're so used to being criminal and corrupt that you project your own tendencies onto everything.
"I just want to find 11,780 votes" isn't a directive telling Raffensperger to do anything.
Wow, that's a horrendous explanation. Asking for a recount is not the same thing as asking to find 11,000 votes. Additionally, even if he didn't explicitly ask for votes (which he did, multiple times), the President shouldn't be on the phone with State officials asking for a recount in the first place. Again, more mob crap, the most powerful person in the world clearly and personally pressuring state officials about election results he didn't like (and, as we've seen beyond a shadow of a doubt, had NO actual fraudulent evidence about).
TRUMP: "And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
And he goes on to ask for ~11,000 votes multiple more times during the call.
Last but not least, you're comparing this to Biden arguably making a racially insensitive remark? Election stealing versus Biden essentially saying (somewhat refreshingly in a PC world): "Hey African Americans, get your heads our of your as*** if you've watched Trump's racist a** and are STILL voting for him!"
A bit disrespectful of blacks? Sure, maybe (although I completely agree with the sentiment, ditto for latinos). Equivalent to election stealing? Please.
You're thinking like a Democrat... You're so used to being criminal and corrupt that you project your own tendencies onto everything.
"I just want to find 11,780 votes" isn't a directive telling Raffensperger to do anything.
It's an ask. That's all it takes to be criminal.
And coming from the president of the United States and leader of his party, it's a pretty strong ask.
And coming from the president of the United States and leader of his party, it's a pretty strong ask.
"nice business, I'd hate to see anything bad happen to it' is what mobsters say to their victims.
Adult by your logic there's no threat, no crime there.
More hackery from a deeply unserious person.
This ^
Well said.
I was going to say something like, "STOP BEING SUCH A FVCKING MORON, A-HOLE, OH, I MEAN 'ADULT'" - but now I don't have to since you said it so much more eloquently.
