"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th"
Why does Twitter want to prevent him from making such a statement on his Twitter account? Would that not be calming the situation, if anything?
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/trump-transition-of...
EDIT: I misread Twitch for Twitter. Alternatively, I'm prescient and this was posted in the wrong thread.
Cherry picking one sentence of a post that is "calming" is what is disingenuous.
I’ve always found this to make his statements incoherent.
If any tech company were to try to suppress the "facts" that support the "rigged election" narrative, that would only reinforce the their beliefs.
Yeah, they do.
The election is what defines the legitimate government; if it really had been falsified[1], then anyone who participated in the falsification would be a usurper, and the government instated by the falsified election would be fake. If something like this actually happened, then it would hardly be insane to consider it your patriotic duty to put a stop to it.
The metaphor is overused as hell, but it is apt: Trump shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre, and now he's acting all surprised that a few people got trampled in the rush to get out.
Anybody who believes him at this point obviously has brain worms, but being a notorious liar doesn't exempt you from libel and sedition laws. It is also irrelevant whether the mob sincerely believes the election was stolen, or whether they're using it as an excuse; slander is still slander.
[1]: Using ad-tech to manipulate the way people vote, as the Cambridge Analytica conspiracy theory alleges, is not falsification.
This has been Trump, forever. He strings together contradictions in every sentence he can, and when he can't, he makes sure to contradict or make a random topic change within the next sentence.
Why does he do this? It's a rhetorical trick. That means every time he speaks, most people find something in it that they want to hear. He makes sure not to say anything specific unless it's obvious that he's embellishing it; then if you don't like what he says, it sounds like it was a joke or off the cuff. This has been his whole platform. Say so many things, with so many interpretations, with so little factual basis, that most people can find something they like, and almost no one can pin him down for saying something awful. You just expect him to be grandiose and full of shit, and he is, so it's hard to be upset, as long as you find him charismatic.
Sorry, but that framing is disingenuous. Trump was suspended when he incited a mob to march to the capitol and "fight" to "stop" a joint session of congress, who then invaded and sacked the seat of government of the United States.
Later, after all this, he posted (for the very first time ever!) that he'd accept the results of the election. So... that's good. But it's not why he was banned.
The transition starts way before January 20th. It starts immediately follwing presidential election. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_tra...
Trump didn't even acknowledge he would agree to a peaceful transition of power until today when he lost all avenues (however imaginary) of staying in power.
Quotes:
--- start quote ---
The General Services Administration Administrator, Emily Murphy, initially refused to issue the "ascertainment" letter declaring Biden the "apparent winner", on the basis that the election result was disputed. The declaration would mark the official start of the transition. Withholding it denied the Biden transition team full funds, secure office space, and access to agencies
Biden had also been denied daily classified national security briefings.
Further, the State Department denied access to communications from foreign leaders, leaving the Biden team to communicate through other unofficial channels.
-- end quote ---
Ah, how nevertheless an orderly transition this is, indeed.
If you want any other behavior you’d have to clarify the immunities and/or expectations around platforming government officials explicitly in law, and I am afraid what this congress would come up with.
Many of the people who work on those platforms don't want to be complicit in a coup.
But how can we agree on the principle of censorship?
I mean, if we agree with the idea of censorship, we also mechanically agree to get censored tomorrow by whoever is the new censor.
Shouldn’t it be the same rule for everyone?
More broadly, I disagree with your use of the word “censor.” Trump can say whatever he wants. But it doesn’t follow that if some company doesn’t want to publish his book or stream his video that it’s censorship.
Some places don’t have moderation (parler). Other places do (Twitch). That’s fine.
I’m not talking specifically about Twitch.
At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.
Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.
Ok, but this article is about Twitch.
> At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.
So anything that is "public" cannot have moderation? A chess forum has to allow Osama bin Laden to post his political rants? Should it be illegal to run a website with moderation?
> Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.
I'll say the same thing I am saying today: it's their own platform and they can moderate it however they want. If I don't like their moderation, I am perfectly capable of going elsewhere.
I'm not even in the US!!
They'll welcome him with open arms.
Edit: I will be more blunt since some replies show they don't understand what I find weird:
Why do you need a private social media company to stop your president from planting terrorism in your own country because he thinks the election is fake instead of congress/government/whatever??!
I think the issue in 2016 was too many people wanted the job. You can agree/disagree whether the primary field included 'outstanding' people, but the sheer number of candidates allowed the loud mouth to stand out.
You can think of election cycles as a series of games of rock paper scissors. Not uncommon for the winner of the primary to be a guy that can't win in general. Scissors beats paper in the primary. Goes up against rock in the general and loses.
The issue was that a relatively large number of them had financial support and sizeable backing within the Republican party until late in the campaign. That's less likely to happen if there's one outstanding candidate. For example, it didn't happen in 2020, not because nobody else wanted to be President, but because the GOP overwhelmingly agreed that Trump was their best bet.
The problem is, Trump = big ratings for the media on both sides. MSNBC is as much to blame as Fox. It's also imho partially the DNC's fault (the left has less choices), and they picked a flawed candidate who would've never won against any of the RNC choices.
She had a criminal on-going investigation, which true or not should've been like, woah, let's maybe put someone else in, who might not be indicted.
The entire system is fubarred and there's plenty of blame to go around, I don't know where we go from here, and I highly doubt a Biden administration is going to bring much joy either to a lot of American's who are suffering.
I do hope we make it harder for something like this to happen again (for fascists to take such strong control in America).
Nothing prevented this president or any other president from just opening a 24x7 conference call line where he can just blather whatever he feels like at any time to anyone listening.
But, none of them did.
However I have no sympathy for him as his actions are ridiculous on any level let alone as President. Being a Libertarian I am not a fan of big government and I am certainly not a fan of anyone suggesting what he has with how to do deal with an election outcome he does not like.
Sorry, this is not how we are supposed to work and I am actually disappointed that Congress hasn't just pulled the plug as a whole since the debacle started to unfold. Pence has shown he can be put in place, he will be a modern day Ford if not for a short period of time but he should take mantle if not just for the few weeks we need him.
The sad part is this elections are frauds has been building for years and both sides are to blame for creating an environment so poisoned that all elections that don't turn out right are considered unjust. Now we have reached the final stage which is violence.
I mean, even back in 2016, he made it clear that he won't accept the results of any election he didn't win. (And then went on to spend the next year spreading lies and conspiracy theories about how he actually won the popular vote.)
He's just following through on past behaviour. In a country with less robust civic systems, this is the sort of rhetoric that you can leverage into becoming dictator-for-life.
Keep them raised if you'd watched it.
Anyone?
For example, this person, http://twitch.tv/anthonypatchofficial makes a living via Patreon donations spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
He claims vaccines are made using HIV, among other nonsense.
He has 100+ viewers in average. He could not make a living doing this if Patreon and Twitch deplatformed him.
The only reason that guy gets up in the morning is to make the pandemic worse than it already is.
