Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

We can hope Twitter adopts and enforces policies equally across the board, but they won't and I don't think they can either.

As an example of how they won't do so, consider that there are people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter right now, and they have not been banned or had their tweets/accounts hidden. Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself, amplifying rioting supported by Antifa and DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), as documented in https://thepostmillennial.com/ilhan-omars-daughter-shows-sup.... While hundreds of people are inciting violence and using Twitter to organize violence in Minneapolis, the company has done nothing to stop it, and yet they're willing to block Trump's tweet on the theoretical enforcement of laws against criminal rioting? Clearly this is a discriminatory bias in action.

As for how they can't do so: Twitter is a Silicon Valley company. It mostly employs young, far left liberals. Its internal culture is heavily influenced by where it is located and the people it employs. Their Hateful Conduct Policy (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...) is also subject to that cultural/political influence. For instance, this policy notes that "misgendering" is not allowed. But if you're on the other side of the transgender debate, and feel that pronouns should be based on biology-derived gender, and don't think trans women and biological women should be lumped into a group, then you might be banned. Put another way, Twitter has encoded political stances into their operating procedures, and there's no escaping that even if they expressed a wish to treat their customers equally across the board.

There are only two ways out. One option is that Twitter admits it is biased, that they do discriminate against certain viewpoints, and that they do exert editorial control over their platform. The other option is that they return to viewpoint neutrality, avoid censorship/blocking, and only do so to the minimal extent explicitly required by law.

It’s possible to have bias without editorialising, as far as I know Twitter only hides, deletes or bans. It doesn’t edit, the fact checking is appending.

> But if you're on the other side of the transgender debate

Then you follow twitter's rules on its platform. You're free to misgender people elsewhere.

Moderation, even moderation and policies you personally disagree with does not rise to the level of "editorial control" under the law.

> While hundreds of people are inciting violence and using Twitter to organize violence in Minneapolis, the company has done nothing to stop it, and yet they're willing to block Trump's tweet on the theoretical enforcement of laws against criminal rioting?

Are you certain that no tweets from protestors glorifying violence have been removed? Notably, none of the tweets you mention are condoning violence, so you're actually insisting that twitter hold $random_internet_people_on_the_whole to a higher standard than the president.

You want twitter to take "Bring milk to a protest" more seriously than "when the looting starts, the shooting starts". That's not Twitter's bias showing, that's yours. Under this interpretation, I believe twitter would also have needed to remove tweets organizing the recent Hong Kong protests. Is that what you want?

How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?

According to section 230, it is only relevant if it changes the meaning of the original content. If it's clearly different content, then it's clearly different content.

> How is appending not editing. If I append a statement to the end of your comment that contradicts your earlier point without your permission, how is that not editorial?

Hi, I think you're wrong. Here's the proof: I haven't edited your comment, but by replying I have just appended a statement to it without your permission.

Twitter don't ban for mere misgendering; anti trans Twitter has been left alone to harass for years, although I believe Glinner finally got banned.

Replying is different than officially annotating though. You can already reply on Twitter.

A reply is a reply, regardless of mechanism. Twitter didn't change a single character of Trump's wording, so they didn't "edit" his tweet.

>people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter right now

>Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself

Apparently, retweeting a list of supplies to help protect yourself from bodily harm from violent police is "literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property"

Lets take an other example.

There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".

Have I edited the painting and created a new painting? Is it a single art, or a separate painting and a comment? Do I need additional copyright permissions to create a derivative work, or can I use a painting licensed under Creative Common no derivative in order to create my own version of the Treachery of Images? When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?

I get what you're saying, but the flip side of it is that such actions are aiding, enabling, and abetting a crime (in this case, a large number of crimes). The "protect yourself from bodily harm" bit is what enables these rioters to avoid dispersing and ceasing violent destruction of property. And it is obvious from numerous tweets from various DSA and antifa handles that these two groups are very much amplifying and glorifying destructive rioting. This is real material violence, not theoretical violence, and therefore Twitter needs to shut it down if they have a problem with theoretical violence that they think Trump's tweet glorifies.

Calling police "violent" for wanting to stop blatant opportunistic theft and terrorist behavior (e.g. deliberately cutting gas lines to create big explosions) is a stretch. I would call the initial policing incident that tipped off the protests violent, and I would call the destructive rioting violent (as opposed to the initial peaceful protesting). Both acts deserve condemnation and consequences in my view.

But it can change the meaning. For instance, if I write a tweet that says "I like the joker character" and twitter appends my tweet saying "People that like joker might shoot up a movie theater", you've changed the intent and meaning completely from what was intended... The media tends to do this kind of thing a lot when they take a speech and add their own commentary to change what was said. Appending/elaborating on what someone says makes them your words, not the original authors.

> There is an original painting of a pipe. Under it I append the comment: "This is not a pipe".

You're wondering off and getting lost in the weeds with your example.

Twitter replied on its platform using a new mechanism that it created. Trying to twist that reply into an "edit" (with the implication that it's some kind of illegitimate corruption of the work replied to) is drifting towards a denial of free speech and other nonsensical implications.

> When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?

On Section 230 more generally:

Correcting a Persistent Myth About the Law that Created the Internet (https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-p...):

> Understanding section 230’s history is essential to informing the current debate about the law. And that history tells us that one of the main reasons for enacting section 230 was to encourage online services to moderate content....

> Section 230’s “findings” states that the internet offers “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” Nothing in section 230’s history, however, suggests that this goal requires platforms to be “neutral.” Indeed, section 230 allows platforms to develop different content standards, and customers ultimately can determine whether those standards meet their expectations. [Emphasis mine.]

> But it can change the meaning. For instance, if I write a tweet that says "I like the joker character" and twitter appends my tweet saying "People that like joker might shoot up a movie theater", you've changed the intent and meaning completely from what was intended...

So? No one has a "right to the last word," so that when they speak, everyone else has to shut up so their words will be the exclusive influence on their audience.

It's important for free speech that people be able to point out when someone has lied or spread misinformation.

Rioting, looting, and even torching buildings is not the close to the same level of violence as police killings, driving down protestors, or threatening people with guns. Tweets endorsing or even glorifying the former don’t come close to be as dangerous as tweets excusing the latter. Don’t pretend like these two are equivalent.

Earlier this year, the rapper Zuby was suspended for tweeting "Ok dude" to a trans person:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ok-dude-twitter-susp...

> A reply is a reply, regardless of mechanism

That's certainly wrong. A reply by an ordinary user using the ordinary mechanism is a very different thing than an official editorial note which carries the imprimatur of the platform. And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.

They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?

> That's certainly wrong. A reply by an ordinary user using the ordinary mechanism is a very different thing than an official editorial note which carries the imprimatur of the platform.

Sorry, no, It's not wrong. Twitter's reply using a new mechanism it created may be different than one made by an ordinary user, but that difference doesn't turn their reply into an edit.

> And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.

Yes, and it's their right to do that.

> They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?

I never said they weren't moderating their platform (which they have every right to do in any way they see fit). I was merely disputing the weird conflation of "reply" with "edit."