Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

I said it yesterday and got downvotes, Twitter’s CEO decided to pick sides in the political battle so they should expect what’s coming to them.

I don't understand. He broke their TOS. They applied a punishment in line with their TOS.

Do heads of state somewhere not-stated to the public have some sort of social media diplomatic immunity?

Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

"them" who?

Does not wanting your government to shoot US citizens count as choosing a side now?

Biden doesn’t make multiple false claims everyday.

Also Biden’s not the President (yet).

what's coming to them? Is it violence? That's how I often here the phrase "get what's coming to you" used.

Sounds like maybe you should take the hint. It's not "taking sides" to point out that you're glorifying violence if you as the president are threatening to deploy military force against protestors.

Maybe a statement that we can all agree on would be: _selectively_ fact checking implies picking sides?

I think it's a point of contention (colored by existing political views) as to whether or not Twitter is selectively fact checking here.

Hopefully this isn't too controversial, there's a lot of hostility already in this thread, and I don't want to contribute to it.

Perhaps you spend too much time around violent people?

The phrase is the equivalent of “reaping what you sow”.

Sending police to stop violence is "glorifying violence"? How exactly?

Sigh. Really.

The tweets didn’t offer “sending in the police” it threatened to send the military in. Which isn’t the police.

Word matter. The fact I’m m reading this comment here is sad.

Sending police to shoot at protester is "glorifying violence". As a reference, that's the approach that Assad took in Syria back in 2011.

> Fact checking doesn't imply picking sides. Not fact checking does.

Fact checking with partisan media sources does imply picking sides.

I've done my own share of protesting (living in Eastern Europe forces you to do that sometimes) and we never resorted to looting. If we had done so I would have expected the powers that be to take some counter-measures that would have involved more than strong verbal reprimands, yes.

He attacks people on Twitter and pretends he can literally do what he wants without consequences — whether from the government and rule of law or in this case, a private company.

You’re getting downvoted for a fair call out. There’s a deeper rot in this country where a select group believes freedom and fairness is something they can own and define, screw reality or objective fact. Anything else is biased and a conspiracy paid for by Soros, Obama, Hillary, Muslims, Hispanics, and the “swamp”.

it sort of does, WHO they use to check the facts can very def define what side they're on.

No, see you've immediately moved the goals posts. He didn't say "I'm sending the police to stop violence".

I was talking about stuff like this, of course: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twi...

or perhaps you use it against the most egregious offences by users with a high number of followers. not much point fact checking my tweets because at worst I could misinform 6 people, perhaps if it was retweeted a lot it would then be fact checked. Trump's verbal/typed diarrhea gets everywhere.

There has to be a line somewhere, otherwise the implication is that nobody can be held correct by fact checking. Snopes and Politifact do a pretty good job, IMO. I think this just touches on the fact that the GOP and Trumpists in general are more likely to engage in distorting the truth or outright fabricating lies.

If by 'we' you're referring to the entirety of Eastern Europe, Russia has a well known history of employing agent provocateurs in order to affect protests or other movements. This isn't isolated to just Eastern Europe either, considering Italy has a history of this as well.

Needless to say there's also been some reporting and concerns of provocateurs among the protesters here as well using it as an excuse to inflame riots or start looting.

he said he was sending the army to start shooting, not sending the police to stop violence.

which again is used to refer to a violent response to a violent action.

I live in Romania, not Russia, and you're correct, the powers that we protested against also employed agent provocateurs. They were easy to spot though (youngish, like 17-18, looked like they belonged to some football ultra movements) and the other protesters took almost immediate action against them (isolating them, mostly).

He mentioned shooting at looters, not protesters.

Maybe you didn't see that part because Twitter has hidden the tweet?

You may find this thread interesting, as it concerns the allegation that the property destruction taking place yesterday (edit: Wednesday - I just remembered it's already Friday) was initiated by a police officer. https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1266196890649088000

The looting in Minneapolis is a) rather ancillary to the larger protests against the police, b) an American tradition going back to colonial times, and c) a mix of opportunism and antipathy to US hypercapitalism. A few small stores have been damaged but the destruction has mainly been targeted against corporate retail outlets.

Different places have different forms of political outcry. Protest by destruction of commercial property was a well-known component of American colonial resistance to Britain. (Consider the Boston Tea Party, for example.)

Personally I have never been part of a riotous protest, but in an academic sense I believe that destruction of commercial property does more to force a change in police activity than destruction of police cars and other public property (things that ultimately belong to the people themselves).

You can bet that there are more powerful people in the business community there, than on the police force.

I don't believe this is actively in the mind of most rioters, but I think it is part of the reason that rioting has a major impact on American politics.

Shooting at looters instead of arresting them and taking them before a judge?

That's reminiscent of the very brutal police practices that sparked this chaos in the first place.

I think they just mean them=Twitter

In which country do you live?

Shooting rubber bullets at rioters and looters is standard practice pretty much everywhere in democracies, and in non-democracies they tend to go straight to lethal ammo.

Can you explain how not fact checking implies picking a side?

Selectively fact checking things that are arguably opinions rather than factual claims in the first place, using flimsy evidence, whilst leaving actual factual misinformation to spread is definitely picking sides.

To believe that it’s even possible to not pick sides is non-sensical.

“Not picking sides” often means siding with the status quo. That might be fine but it’s not the same as not picking a side.

You're right, I mixed the two. In any case I think my point still stands; in most European countries both would be addressed with police batons and in case of violence rubber bullets and tear gas. From his tweet I don't think he was thinking about rubber bullets.

> so they should expect what’s coming to them

The national guard?

No fact check = implicit trust

No it wouldn't. Most cases of looting in Europe are just forgotten about because it's done by minorities in countries like France or UK and it's a controversial topic to talk about so police and governments would rather just pretend it doesn't happen.

Not fact checking is only picking a side once you have decided to fact check. Before all of this twitter could claim to be a medium of communication. There isn't implicit trust that something is true because it is written on paper, posted on a billboard, or appears on TV. By choosing to mark tweets as true or false, they are no longer just a medium of communication. We can now imply that if twitter does not mark a tweet as false, they are endorsing that tweet as true.

Mobs in Europe are usually not armed with guns, mobs in USA are.

Only by violent people. It’s about a consequence, good or bad. It’s literally about fucking harvesting crops.