True but in this case the violence was on the part of the protestors.
Those groups did not promote violence; Trump did.
Navalny’s response to that:
Maybe he’s right about that part – Twitter should ban other prominent advocates of violence.
I would say to him that they should. I would like to see Twitter (Facebook, etc.) make a stronger stand, and maybe this is the first step towards them realizing that not picking sides is picking a side.
And FWIW the read that the specific posts promoted violence does require some interpretation of the posts in context. It was not an explicit call anyway. Much less than much else that is and has been allowed.
93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds
Now of course about the few ones that did resort to violence had the perpetrators of violence arrested. The point here is that one should not fall for the talking points from the right, even the DHS (while also capturing the few antifa violent ones) had to say that White supremacists are greatest terror threat and the ones we should worry more about.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236
Now, BLM usually does use social media to organize peaceful protests, the few that go for violence can be identified too and I agree those should be banned, not just all of BLM.
I disagree about these specific posts (and many others). Trump is clearly excusing and advocating violence in many of these posts. There are other things to say aside from “please be violent!” that are clearly excusing and advocating for violence.
Sure, but 93 percent implies that 7 percent weren’t peaceful - and if a tech giant wanted to ban such a movement, 7 percent is all that would be needed.
But anyway, I won’t digress further, to prevent from derailing a Trump thread into a BLM thread. The point is - the sword can slice both ways. And the same political causes cheering for a Trump ban today may find themselves on the receiving end tomorrow.
What argument are you making? Yes, private entities can ban any speech on their platforms that they choose. I hope they ban violent speech like Trump’s but not peaceful speech like BLM, but they can ban anything they like. This is not a surprise to anyone with the barest knowledge of free speech.
It would, if the BLM leadership was on record as it was Trump and henchmen on storming a specific government building, to fight like hell and to do trial by combat to prevent, lets say, a local government from removing a member of the group from a local government.
Modhat: Merged DSeid’s thread into prior thread of basically same debate.
That’s apples to oranges. Trump is a person. BLM is a loose movement. Certainly any BLM individual who advocates violence in the way Trump does could be subject to a ban, even if 93% of their individual posts are peaceful. But that’s different from banning all discussion of BLM.
A recent closed thread asked if it was a first Amendment violation. It is not. But one poster in the thread raised the issue of whether it might be an oligopoly issue. In a world in which a very few companies, and in fact a very few individual executives, control the soapboxes of the public square, should there be some consideration to that power by a very few, that it not be applied capriciously?
Case made by Russian dissident and assassination attempt survivor Alexey Navalny.
Neither is Merkel a fan.
I believe Twitter is less worried about further violence and more concerned with posturing and virtue signalling. Everyone likes to condemn a villain.
And I believe that posturing about virtue signaling in the face of a putsch, a clown ish putsch but a putsch, is a form of virtue signalling aimed at fascism adjacent insurrectionists sympathetic extremism
Most likely Twitter doesn’t want to be subject to lawsuits if Section 230 gets repealed as many conservatives are making noises about. I’d say 99% CYA, 1% virtue signaling. Always, always follow the money.
There’s nothing unique about Twitter. Before Twitter and internet I never had a political right to demand someone give me a publication platform. If I had a newspaper column and the publisher found me too obnoxious and or extreme, and pulled my column of his own free will without government strongarming well too bad so sad.
Private publishers are responding to the market and their ownership interest and I have no problem as there’s no government strongarming (actually the risk is more the opposite with the neo-Confederates insurrectionist fellow travelers likely bringing risk of attempted government retribution in collusion with the censoring far Left).
Trump can still set up a blog or website and self publish. Nothing is stopping him. He doesn’t have a right to leach parasitically off of what Twitter
Is No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service an unacceptable violation of the right to assembly?
If I formally announce that I won’t read anything Trump writes nor listen to anything he says, is that unacceptable censorship?