Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

The valley being an echo chamber doesn’t necessarily mean those implementing this have their heads in the sand.

It can’t be all perfectly achieved, but to do nothing, as they were before, could be now determined to be a worse case than providing these annotations to flagrant misuse by the highest impact profile that they can’t do away with entirely.

The issue is that the rules are being enforced selectively. Just this week Twitter fact checked Trump's opinion on mail voter fraud by linking to other experts' opinions. It seems more like a move to influence the election rather than enforcing the rules.

> The issue is that the rules are being enforced selectively.

It's not only acceptable but actually ethically correct to hold those with more power to higher standards of responsibility.

It's therefore not only acceptable but actually ethically correct to enforce these rules more proactively against the President of the United States than some Russian bot account.

There is no objective "ethically correct" anything.

You'll say one thing is "ethically correct", and someone else will say the exact opposite thing is "ethically correct".

Neither of you is right, and neither of you is wrong.

Given limited resources, you don't think it's undeniably "ethically correct" to direct those resources where they are more effective?

It doesn't matter what I think. My point is that ethics are subjective, not objective.

Let me word it another way then.

Given limited resources, don't you think it's undeniably correct to direct those resources where they are more effective?

Depends on what's being done with those resources.

Example 1 - Drumming up support for a war with Iran. No it's not correct to direct resources to where they are most effective. (According to me.)

Example 2 - Trying to get homeless people in SF back on their feet. Yes, direct resources where they are most effective. (Again, according to me.)

But in example 1 if we ask the same question to a war hawk in congress, they'll give you the exact opposite answer. In example 2 if you ask Ayn Rand, again you'll get a different answer.

No one is objectively right or wrong in any of these cases.