Oh that’s hilarious. After tech companies stifling a sitting president, now they are going to straight faced claim this like it means a damn thing.
This is insulting to users’ intelligence.
For three years they used the FBI to threaten his family and jail his friends under an investigation into what we now know was a political campaign weapon falsified by the Clinton campaign. And the FBI knew that immediately as well. With Adam Schiff out there every day swearing that behind closed doors with the intelligence community he knew of big things that were going to come to light any day now.
But it worked. The political weapon did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Moreso than the right, it broke the left into the hyper-defensive ideological mess that it is right now. Fully embracing things that were mere crackpot ideas of their most wild-eyed constituents in the Obama years.
Everything that president said and did was covered by the press around the world, an army of spokespeople and a million online sycophants. He isn't (and certainly wasn't) "stifled" by the banning of his social media accounts. Really, tech companies bent over backwards to accommodate him, gave him far more slack than they would give you or I. And even then he had to cross the line twice.
Hell, he's still the frontrunner for the Republicans in 2024, and the last anyone heard from him was that he was selling NFTs.
The narrative of Trump being silenced by big tech isn't working, find another one already.
Except virtually everyone I spoke to was unaware of what his final posts on social media on jan6 were, they were not covered, and they were lied about for years with no way for the public to see that in fact he called for people to go home peacefully on jan6.
You can say things like this, but they carry more weight when they're true.
And who are these people you've been speaking to? Clearly they're living under rocks.
> and they were lied about for years with no way for the public to see that in fact he called for people to go home peacefully on jan6.
"no way for the public to see" ??? This is nonsense - he first called for people to go home on Jan 6 via a televised announcement, then repeated that on social media, before being banned. The TV announcement was covered and broadcast by multiple TV networks.
Just 3 seconds of Googling brings up this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_JxN9CwIMU
Oh and it's CNN coverage, of all networks!
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversigh...
The Board found that the two posts by Mr Trump on 6 January severely violated Facebook's Community Standards and Instagram's Community Guidelines. "We love you. You're very special" in the first post, and "great patriots" and "remember this day forever" in the second post violated Facebook's rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.
This seems like a ridiculous stretch of "praise of support of people engaged in violence" when right before "We love you." is "We have to have peace. So go home."
It's pretty clear this was a post facto decision - Trump needed to be banned, so let's see if we can come up with something to ban him for.
1. Trump supporters have been made an example of by keeping a bunch of them in jail for years for the crime of walking through a building;
2. There are enough court cases and grand juries outstanding against Trump that one of them will eventually get him and he'll be banned from running again;
3. In any case, a plausible primary rival for Trump has emerged (DeSantis) who has enough flaws of his own (anti-vaxx, anti-woke) that we can use him as a punching bag for the next few years;
4. Trump was allowed back on Twitter but is still playing on his own platform;
Therefore:
We can safely win some PR points by pretending to give a crap about freedom of expression by letting Trump back on our platform.
This is really the most nuanced understanding that you can muster
Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?
I don't love this correlation.
https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversigh...
They said his comment "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special." and "from great patriots who have been badly, unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!"
As "praising or supporting people committing violence".
He literally said "we have to have peace" and "go home" and that, to you, is "deserving being banned"?
If you got this wrong, consider if you got your medical knowledge wrong too. Try talking to your doctor for medical advice.
