For breaking the law of this magnitude DT should have been banned and was rightly so. No excuse. One law for all doesn’t apply in this case and this is a very specific case we are talking about. People on EF were banned for much lower transgressions, that’s a child’s play compared to inciting violence and insurrection that threatens democracy and divides the nation.

Hopefully the difference can be spotted by common sense?

We've got to start somewhere, Tony. I am more angry that people react to conspiracy theories by causing damage to property and human life.

Fully agree, someone was stabbed over the 5G conspiracy though. Inciting violence is against the law, yet the social media giants have allowed it to go on for too long. By focusing on those on the right though, social media giants have left themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Ironically it is the Dems that have historically wanted to tie up Big Tech with red tape, so this banning could be the excuse they need now they have full political control in the US. Twitter could just well have ensured their own demise!

And perhaps this is why so many platforms are taking action. With the balance of power shifting, platforms are trying to ensure they not run afoul of the Democrats - at least for the next two years.

Anyone who has a deep understanding of the ways social media sites are designed to trap people in dopamine feedback loops and literally hinders their ability to process information due to information overload, decreases the gray matter in their brains, etc. should not have a problem with social media sites being taken down.

In Twitter's case, though, I respect them for blocking Trump and not putting their desire for more profit over whatever sense of social conscience or moral responsibility they do have.

Why bother to quote my post and then respond with a completely different argument?

Addressing your different argument

Ramzan Kadyrov: 4,500 Twitter followers
Nicolás Maduro: 149,000 Twitter followers
Putin: 858,000 Twitter followers

Donald Trump has had 80,000,000 Twitter followers.

The ones you listed are hardly in the same league. Perhaps they should be banned too though. Not my call.

It's the next stage down the road that starts with "so what you're saying is...".

Meaning "I want to argue a point but unfortunately your post doesn't contradict it, so I'll just pretend that it does".

DT was banned because of what he posted, not because of what he had or had not done that might be worthy of censure. Nor indeed for holding, or espousing, any given belief or opinion.

Very big difference.

It's a shame that it's political.

Fair point. But Trump's post hold a lot more sway because of firstly who he is, and secondly, the number of followers he has had.

I bet there are a lot of Twitter posts that are equally inflammatory but get ignored just because it isn't worth it as the posts have no clout.

What's Twitter?

Tom

Never use it. Neither SNAP, Pinterest nor FB anymore.

Does that help in lowering incidents?

Twitter is useless but TWINT is helpful!

Trump had been warned about his posting of misinformation, etc. on Twitter, by Twitter, for years. Practically every post of his was being flagged, particularly in the past few months. Maybe one of the reasons they finally blocked him permanently is because they were tired of his posts consuming so much of their time and energy, with having to constantly remove and flag most of them.

Anyways, Trump having a Twitter account is basically the equivalent of giving an angry and irrational two-year old a megaphone.

Perhaps Twitter feels in part responsible for what happened at the Capitol due to giving him a platform to manipulate his support base with lies and hate propaganda for so long. If that's the case, they should also feel a sense of responsibility to permanently block him, which thankfully, they did.

It's a dance from the 60s. Don't you remember?

I think therein lies the crux of it, he made his comments as one of the most important people in the world and they were seen by millions of people.
The same posts written by Joe Bloggs from number 32 wouldn’t have the same impact at all and would barely be noticed.

A bit like Troll'n'Roll.

In other words, to put it in simple terms for those who only understand the EF platform:

DT - Forum Legend
Joe Bloggs - Newbie
Joe Bloggs 1 - Newbie
.
.
.

You just never stop...

But we will never know whether Trumps alligations of voter fraud were true, as his complaints were dismissed outright without proper investigation. I mean you imagine the embaresment if voter fraud was discovered in the US ? Better not to look too closely...

That no evidence of fraud was found, and never properly investigated, does not mean it did not happen.

With all the false allegations the Democrates sprouted over the last 4 years, and their desperation to get rid of Trump, I think the Democrates are capable of anything and I would not automatically dismiss claims of fraud.

I actually wanted to write about it being unfair to judge someone on the posts they like then lost my train of thought when I came to hypocrisy of moderators and went off on a tangent to hypocrisy of social media.

There's actually nothing in Twitter T&Cs that say the number of followers impact on how tweets are judged.

I hope it's not lost on you as a moderator the number of members here that do that on a regular basis!

It was properly investigated on many levels. Here's Mitch McConnell actually explaining that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8onTIu-F0