Twitter Flags Trump and White House Tweets About Minneapolis Protests for 'Glorifying Violence' (wsj.com) 603
Twitter placed a notice on a tweet from President Trump, shielding it from view for breaking what the company said are its rules about glorifying violence [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. From a report: Mr. Trump's tweet was a comment on the violent protests in Minnesota. The post can now only be seen after users click a box with a notice saying it violated Twitter's rules against encouraging violence, but it otherwise remains visible. "We've taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance," Twitter said on its official communications account.
This is the first time such a step has been taken against a head of state for breaking Twitter's rules about glorifying violence, a company spokesman said. The company said users' ability to interact with the tweet will be limited, and that users can retweet it with comment, but not like, reply to, or otherwise retweet it. "...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!," Mr. Trump's tweet said. The official account of the White House, which tweeted Trump's message, has been flagged as well.
This is the first time such a step has been taken against a head of state for breaking Twitter's rules about glorifying violence, a company spokesman said. The company said users' ability to interact with the tweet will be limited, and that users can retweet it with comment, but not like, reply to, or otherwise retweet it. "...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!," Mr. Trump's tweet said. The official account of the White House, which tweeted Trump's message, has been flagged as well.
Another day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another day (Score:4, Interesting)
Can but won't, because nobody actually cares about the issues in any way that will cause violence against meaningful targets. The American revolutionary spirit is flaccid and vestigial. Things that could have huge repercussions happen every few days, and they never do, because the real activities of the ruling elite are wholly separate from the political theater we're all enrapt with.
Re:Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
"social media vs. POTUS"?
What do you mean? It is one social media reigning in an abusive user, nothing more.
Re: (Score:3)
huge repercussions? the decadence of the political system was set in motion years ago already, and with the economy in shambles it's not really hard to guess where it will lead, these are just some of the symptoms. anecdotal in the big picture.
interesting to observe but no, for the rest of the world this doesn't change anything.
Re:Another day (Score:4)
except when they have oil of course.
Yes, quite a lot. (Score:3)
But are they exporting any of it?
Yes, quite a lot. More than Saudi. It was down 30% in April - exactly in proportion to the worldwide drop in demand due to coronavirus, but bookings for the next couple months have rebounded.
The US was exporting about ten million barrels per day. Search for news on Occidental, Equinor, BP, and Trafigura. Or just 'US oil exports 2020". The rebound is a big headline item because it is a sign that companies are betting the coronavirus economic downturn is about to start re
Re:Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Trump Tweeted anything supportive about how the police officers involved will be judged/prosecuted like ordinary criminals?
Is he only interested in shooting at civilians?
Re:Another day (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of. Most of his tweeting is nothing but ranting about twitter, but I will re-post here everything he has tweeted about the death and subsequent protests, in reverse order (newest first)
"The National Guard has arrived on the scene. They are in Minneapolis and fully prepared. George Floyd will not have died in vain. Respect his memory!!!" - And yes, he used three exclamation marks.
"These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!" - This is the post that Twitter flagged for glorifying violence.
"I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right..."
"....I have asked for this investigation to be expedited and greatly appreciate all of the work done by local law enforcement. My heart goes out to George’s family and friends. Justice will be served!"
So, yes, initially: His first statement on the issue was calling for an investigation, which is normal: Even when there is well-documented evidence of a crime, investigation comes before charging, so give him some credit there. But soon after that he started trying to turn it into a way to score some political points, and then becomes uncomfortably eager to to shoot some thugs - a word itself has awkward racial connotations.
I'm not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to play to both sides, or just the result of off-the-cuff tweeting without due care.
Re:Another day (Score:4, Interesting)
A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey ...
As usual, the telling part about this Trump message is, "very weak Radical Left Mayor" rather than simply, "Mayor". He's incapable of simply being professional and "Presidential". Doesn't he know that he represents *everyone* in the US, not just those who support him and/or fan his vanity? Also ...
Not really sure what he means by, "get the job done right." Seems pretty ominous. Also, not sure he can direct the National Guard to enforce state laws (opposed to federal laws) w/o the consent of that state's governor.
Re:Another day (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't the Mayor the fucking idiot that intentionally made this a race issue instead of a simple police abuse of power one?
Ah, yes: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com... [cbslocal.com]
Nice work Mayor. Now your city is burning and being black in Minneapolis means having your home and business burned down.
Re: Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the fuck looks at Trump's Twitter feed?
I don't even understand why the news covers the shit he says.
Re: (Score:3)
Because he is arguably the single most powerful person in the world. He can sink an economy with a few words. He has the strongest military ever assembled under his command. He appoints numerous high-level federal officials. He even has access to nuclear bombs. Whatever Trump may tweet, it's important, if only because it tells us how he thinks.
Re: Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
You appear to be implying that Trumpâ(TM)s tweets could somehow alleviate ignorance, rather than exacerbate it. I defy you to provide some evidence of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody ever became less ignorant by reading something Trump said.
Re: Another day (Score:5, Informative)
Have you looked at his twitter feed
Yep.
There's lots of hating on Twitter since they censored him. There's a new executive order to force them "uphold free speech".
There's some stuff about how how Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey needs to "get his act together and bring the City under control" (I'm guessing Trump doesn't like him),
There's some stuff hating on Obama and several other people.
Not a single mention of what happened in Minneapolis or what actions will be taken to prevent it ever happening again.
PS: Have you seen the video of what the cops did? That's murder, right there. If they weren't cops they'd be in jail right now. Plus the paramedics who just loaded him on a gurney without even checking if he had a pulse or not.
Re: Another day (Score:5, Interesting)
Show me something nice/supportive on the Trump Twitter feed related to the Minneapolis killing.
Not a single mention of what happened in Minneapolis or what actions will be taken to prevent it ever happening again.
At my request, the FBI and the Department of Justice are already well into an investigation as to the very sad and tragic death in Minnesota of George Floyd....
--@realDonaldTrump May 27th
If your point revolves around something not existing, your exercise in due care should be more than cursory. Although in your defense, damn, that man can tweet.
Re: Another day (Score:4, Informative)
There's lots of hating on Twitter since they censored him.
Don't fall for that. Twitter didn't "censor" him; they (basically) added a disclaimer. Trump's tweets are still there, with their texts complete and unedited.
Re: Another day (Score:5, Informative)
You don't do a jury trial before the arrest. Do you even know what the order of due process is?
Probable cause, then arrest, rights, processing/booking, possible bail hearing before a magistrate or judge, pre-trial hearing/conferences ad infinitum, plea deal/jury trial, sentence.
Do you see how we already have strong probable cause, but you're hung up on a jury trial, when they should be arrested because that's the proper next step in our legal system.
You always arrest an innocent person. That's how it works! Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You still get arrested, read your rights, booked, and only then can you even have a chance of bail. They're sitting at home, without bail, and without being arrested.
It is a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
It was a rhetorical question (Score:3, Informative)
You can't call a Spade a Spade here on
Re: (Score:3)
I am expecting a medal of freedom to be awarded to the officers by fascist leader any day now
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Another day (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot is an American website and Twitter is an American social media platform. It's related to technology, so it's appropriate. If you don't care, why bother reading the post or commenting on it? I guess you're just trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
Like it or not, Slashdot is a US-based site. Anyone from anywhere is welcome to participate, but don't whine when they cover US topics.
Re: (Score:3)
Get your own country with 330 million people with a huge market and then you can make whatever news you want.
Re: (Score:3)
>outsiders with a poor grasp of English
I'm in England. I find that comment hugely funny, thanks for making my day.
Re:Another day (Score:4, Insightful)
"When the looting starts the shooting starts" was written by a man who has the weapons capability to level every city in my country and whatever country it is that you live in.
I care.
Re:Another day (Score:5, Insightful)
Feel free to submit news about wherever you live. If it's interesting enough, /. will (probably) post it for the rest of us to read....
Alternately, if you're not interested in an article, you're allowed to not read it. It's amazing how seldom the editors actually hire gunmen to force people to read the articles they put up here....
Re:Another day (Score:4, Interesting)
Feel free to submit news about wherever you live. If it's interesting enough, /. will (probably) post it for the rest of us to read....
You're new here aren't you? I've spent my time submitting articles and also hanging around on the firehose trying to cull the crap. Yet the slashvertisments kept being published and articles seemed to magically bypass the firehose and a lot of really interesting articles I saw in the firehose never made to be seen. So I challenge your "probably" and suggest that it's more of "someone accidents pushes the wrong button"
Re: (Score:3)
Taco spoke about the Firehose one, sorry I forget where. The basic idea was to let users do some filtering but the ultimate decision was always up to the editors. It never really worked very well for him, too many people abused it my voting down stories from people they had a beef with, and there was no meta-moderation for it.
That was years ago so maybe it's different now, but basically it never worked right.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, are they explicitly egging on the violence or just the protests at large?
Trump's comment is promising escalation to lethal force against admittedly violent, but non lethal protests by citizens. Reports indicate that the protests only escalated to violence after the police started using riot control against non-violent protests. The last thing the situation needs is to threaten further escalation, as here the anger of the protests is exacerbated by the threats and actions.
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Insightful)
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts"
There aren't even lines to read between to insert all that nuance you imagined there.
Trump is not a man of nuance. Thankfully the boots on the ground would probably have leadership with the nuance to make what you imagined a reality, but in a volatile situation, this language is dumping gasoline on the fire.
Yes, more people should be denouncing the disproportionate response by rioters and opportunists. I will agree that if it is correct for Twitter to intervene on Trump's tweets, they should also intervene on some of the others I've seen (in fact, intervening on Trump's tweet does *nothing* because everyone in the world knows what he said, even if Twitter had deleted it). But defending this particular tweet is just dumb.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I say "the police will shoot people who break certain laws", am I encouraging violence, or discouraging crime.
I remember back in Florida before a hurricane hit the coast, the local sheriff went on TV to say "this here is my dog, he's just a mean SOB, and any looters I catch will be fed to this dog". Police have been warning "looters will be shot" from the dawn of time - that's not encouraging violence, it's discouraging looting.
Whatever your political cause, you're never going to convince me it includes
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Insightful)
You only assume Trump is threatening lethal force.
Stop, or I'll shoot... you with something non-lethal to subdue you without causing any lasting harm.
Sorry, but unless you expressly qualify your statement, the default when "shoot" is used as a verb conveys lethality.
Even if it was open to borderline interpretation, this is a president speaking, so - knowing the reach and impact of their words - there'd be clarification to avoid misinterpretation as a threat... unless that threat was the intention. Either way you look at it, it's clear what Trump meant to communicate. It always is, typos aside.
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:4, Interesting)
You got ...
"What I see him saying is he's going to provide manpower and non-lethal force. Basically a bunch of troops will stand there in riot gear and tear gas, bean bags and rubber bullets will be flying as necessary."
from...
"when looting starts, the shooting starts"
When people talk about bullets flying, no one ever legitimately presumes its non-lethal rubber bullets. Ever!
What I see him saying is property (being looted) is more valuable than human life and will be protected with the most extreme force usable against citizens (shooting).
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. You can pretend Trump just said something innocent, but the phrase "When the looting starts, the shooting starts." is a well-known racist statement that is literally about the approval of pro-police brutality against black people. It was said by the Miami Chief of police in 1967. Referring to police actions during the Civil Rights Movement, he also said, "We don't mind being accused of police brutality."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Minnesota governor calls in the National Guard [mercurynews.com]
Your post is a perfect example of Fake news.
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:4, Informative)
So, you do know that the key distinction here between the army and the National Guard is that you legally can't use the army for policing, right? OP said using the army would be illegal, and you seem to be posting "but National Guard" as some sort of rebuttal.
The intent of the Posse Comitatus Act is partly to restrict use of military force to units made of local citizens (at least, from the same state), so that the troops would refuse to go too far against people they may know (and of course the intent was also to restrict federal power to muscle the states).
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Yes, he can use the military (Score:3)
Only local (read:state) government can activate and deploy the National Guard domestically, as they are technically under the command of the state. For the federal government to deploy National Guard they have to activate them and federalize them under the DoD, bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Posse Comitatus Act. He can invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the feseralized Guard domestically, but I don't think we are to the point where it could be considered insurrection.
Re: (Score:3)
Frances Fisher: You want a Race war, we'll give you a race war. [boundingintocomics.com]
Twitter post deleted by her or Twitter. No info available.
Re:There is no defense for S230 anymore here (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm, section 230 was written by Ron Wyden and Chris Cox and I can guarantee that they wouldn't agree with your assessment.
Section 230 was specifically written for providers of an interactive computer service in an effort encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet, but also allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety.
At no point does it mean that any service provider needs to be neutral for the simple reason it's their property with their rules. Can the providers be hypocrites and behave like assholes or being totally biased? Of course they can, because that's not the point of 230. Is 230 a perfect solution? No, but it's way better than the alternatives that I've seen proposed so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump just amended 320. Executive order.
No he didn't, that's not how any of this works. He cannot amend 320 without congress. Instead he directed people to "look into changes" (which he would then need to run by congress). He also directed several federal agencies to see if they can interpret section 320 differently.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read that? The vast majority of it was a directive to federal agencies to find ways to enforce the rules differently and avoid spending federal advertising dollars on companies that he feels break the rules. For example:
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
Here is the tiny paragraph about needing to ask permission
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
The only part I missed out on was here where he directs the creation of a working group to see if state laws can be uses as an end run around section 230:
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
Context, please (Score:5, Informative)
As with everything in the US which might in any way be percieved as race related, I've learned there's a LOT of historical context us foreigners have no idea about - which makes it very hard to understand why and how people react to whatever is the story of the day. Thankfully, TFA actually mentions it:
Trump is intentionally or inadvertently quoting former Miami Police Chief Walter Headley. In December 1967, months before riots broke out during the (Nixon) Republican National Convention, Headley said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” at the announcement of a new “get tough” policy for policing black neighborhoods. Headley promised to use shotguns, dogs, and aggressive “stop and frisk” tactics in a bid to reduce crime. “We don’t mind being accused of police brutality,” the New York Times reported him saying at the time. “They haven’t seen anything yet.”
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't until right now. This kind of "fossil record" argument is exactly why I roll my eyes whenever I hear about a new phrase that's "becoming a racist dog whistle," because the vast majority of people who start saying it don't know or care about that context at all, which means it isn't meaningfully present.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
And a primer on proper human behavior. If you inadvertently say something offensive due to your own ignorance and it gets pointed out, don't threaten the person (or organization) who was nice enough to tell you about the error of your ways. Sincerely apologize to all involved.
If DT has said "I'm so sorry, I didn't understand that reference. I'm ashamed for speaking so intemperately" this would be much of a non-story. The doubling-down indicates that he is only sorry he got called out.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much whether the people who say these things do so knowing full well the historical context that matters, as whether the people who hear it do. Because it's that aspect which will determine the reaction.
If they say it didn't know it was being said 50 years ago, or the outcomes, that's just as damning. It isn't that it was said that matters, it is that it was shocking 50 years ago, and it should still be shocking now. It was horrid then, and they want to repeat it without even knowing what it is. Because they're just as horrible as the people in the past were.
People know something is a "dog whistle" and they want an excuse to say it anyway; that's called a racist.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Informative)
One of the big questions I have is how they end this thing.
I live in Minneapolis, and this is rioting on a scale I don't think we've seen before, I'm pretty sure it's bigger than the 1967 riots. The only larger confrontation might have been the Teamsters Strike in the 1930s.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe enact some real reforms that deal with the cops murdering black people problem.
Thing about riots is that while some people there are just in it for the looting that's not why it starts. It starts because of some grievance that isn't getting resolved and resolving it is usually the best way to end the riot.
Re: (Score:3)
To be accurate, it may not be the best way to end the current riot, but it's the best way to prevent the next one.
How to end the current one...that's difficult, when the government has repeatedly proven itself untrustworthy. Promises won't work, because they can't be believed. A few days ago I would have suggested arresting the accused police officers...but I'm not sure it hasn't gone beyond that point. (Why didn't they arrest the accused officers? I haven't heard any sensible explanation of that. You
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Informative)
Well a CNN reporter and crew got arrested this morning on live TV, so now it's a bigger issue than just black people rioting and might actually get the attention it needs. But probably not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe enact some real reforms that deal with the cops murdering black people problem.
The problem here is THEY ARE. Four cops lost their jobs here and they all are likely facing charges. They all have faced nearly universal condemnation for what happened, literally NOBODY is trying to justify their actions. Justice is on it's way. Investigations are being done and I'm confident that punishment is going to come, it just takes time.
Mob lynchings and riots are NOT justice, they are just senseless violence. They lead to MORE death, MORE racial discord, more of what the protestors claim they
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Informative)
Tone deaf as fuck. They've been telling you. Arrest the murderers. There are clear videos, from multiple angles, of one office watching, two restraining Floyd, and 1 choking him to death, as he cracks a joke, "hey kids, don't do drugs!".
They're not even in custody. The AG gave a statement saying there was, "evidence that does not support criminal charges". That was like dropping a MOAB on the 3rd precinct. The protestors didn't appreciate being shot without warning (no verbal command to move), they didn't appreciate being mollycoddled.
"evidence that does not support criminal charges"
Really? You'd think they'd share it by now.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
We have seen this before, some cops suspended or sacked, maybe one or two are prosecuted, but then it happens again.
That's because prosecuting them works on the assumption that it's a few bad apples and once they are gone the problem is fixed. It's not, it's a systemic problem.
Police policy needs to change, training needs to change, management needs to change, the whole culture needs to change. It's unlikely that no one knew these cops were being heavy handed and that was an opportunity to stop them before someone died. It usually turns out that there were complaints about them before, people badly injured by them.
Re: (Score:3)
Dozens of complaints, apparently. At least one of them was at the centre of a lawsuit against the police department, which they settled.
Re:Context, please (Score:4, Interesting)
Arresting the cops responsible is just the start of what they want, not the end. They want reforms of policing in general so that this doesn't happen again.
It keep happening over and over, it's not just a few bad cops, it's a systemic problem. The system doesn't prevent it, doesn't intervene before it escalates from being heavy handed to killing people. These guys should never have become cops in the first place, or been thrown out of the force years ago, or trained not to use this amount of force, or any number of other interventions that could have saved this guy's life.
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Real reforms are impossible without the city council voiding the police union contract, which basically means disbanding the police department and re-forming a new one under a different labor agreement with much stronger police accountability rules.
I totally support this idea, but I don't know how you do it in any practical way without losing law enforcement service. Unlike disk drives, an entire police department is not hot swappable. And it's not like any kind of reforms can happen on a timeline that ends the riots and destruction before it gets worse.
The really terrible thing is that the life for people in this area (much of which is low income) is that their lives all now got much shittier. *If* the businesses that were destroyed re-open, it will be years. They've lost a ton of basic consumer services. I also worked in this area in the early 1990s and it was ghetto-level bad, the city has worked for years and years to improve this area and it's all gone. It will be a burned out hull for a long time, especially with the economic destruction of the
IMHO, despite the risks, there should have been a much stronger show of force last night to put an end to the wanton destruction. Rather than encouraging the protesters by abandoning the police precinct station, they should have setup high-volume firehose pumps and just started blasting water at the crowd and combined that with a massive show of force of riot police who advance on remaining crowds, detaining anyone who is not dispersing. Zip-tie them in place and continue advancing, and if the crowd fights back, swing those riot sticks and beat them into submission. I'm pretty sure that it won't take much show of force to disperse the crowds when they find out that fighting the cops in the street is a lot rougher than burning and looting.
Does this make it worse? Short term yes, but nobody seems to give a shit about the next 5-10 years of that area being a vacant lot waste land that people have to live in. Tell me about how awesome Watts, Detroit, Newark, Southside LA got after their riots. All that does is make poverty worse, breed crime and resentment, more police conflict and re-booting the whole fucking cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Watts, or the Railway Riots, or the mine stikes in Appalachia. This is probably the biggest upheaval MPLS has seen, but its not that big (yet).
The safest bet is like everything else it will blow over. The city management and police will promise to do better, a handful of mostly innocent good Officers will be sacrificed on the alter of appeasement along side the violent thugs (who sadly managed to become officers) who started this (that absolutely do deserve to be strung up). A few probably not all togeth
Re: (Score:3)
Trump use tongue in cheek racist rhetoric that everyone dismisses as nothing. But hte actual racists hear it loud and clear. So he gets that tiny fragment of the population to vote for him ...... hey 10,000 votes is significant given how presidential elections are nearly a 50/50 vote split every 4 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Context, please (Score:5, Insightful)
How convenient.. Trump is blowing the "Dog whistle" that only the racist hear?
That's a cop out. It says that you fully admit that Trump isn't really saying anything overtly racist, that his words and actions are NOT actually racist, they are just seen as racist by racists... Oh and folks like you who happened to be able to hear what the racists hear because you are somehow in tune to the Dog Whistle too.
Trump isn't all that hard to understand. He's not skilled in being subtle and I've NEVER heard him actually try. Have you? So in your world, the brash "in your face" Trump all of a sudden goes to a "read between the lines" mode, in stark contrast to his normal character, to communicate racist ideology? I find that very unlikely. What I do find likely is that folks *choose* to read between the lines when Trump talks or Tweets and they insert what they expect to see there, and in your case, you expect to see a racist, and that's what you see.
Trump is a plain talking, no holds barred, brash guy who doesn't really care what anybody thinks. He talks from the cuff and what you hear is what he's thinking, not some trite set of rote platitudes that have been focus group tested. You get Trump, unvarnished, rough, clear and exactly what he's thinking. He's not some subtle, read between the lines guy and your attempts to do that with him are misplaced.
The riots aren't surprising (Score:5, Informative)
As the con artist himself said, it's due to weak leadership in Washington [imgur.com].
And for the record, a St. Paul cop was recorded deliberately destroying property [9cache.com] while trying to conceal his identity [9cache.com].
Section 230 (Score:4, Interesting)
Without section 230 slashdot and many hobbyist or topic oriented forums would cease to exist. They would become offtopic spammed and become like geocities got in the 1990s. There would be no way to keep discussions on topic. And no forcing everyone to go to âoeuser moderationâ will fail too because that can be trivially hacked. Trump should get off twitter, it wasnâ(TM)t invented for him. He should have the decency to only use stuff invented for conservatives.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree.
I think Slashdot and sites like it would still operate as they do now. Those that choose to exercise editorial control and curate their user's content would simply lose their legal protections from liability for the content they provide. They would be treated more like newspapers and media, which are legally responsible for their material.
I don't think this is a huge problem for sites like Slashdot. A site is free to choose how they want to operate. IF you want the legal protections of Sectio
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think now the only way to address and reign-in the rampant, blatant, ideological censorship driven by personal-feelings-override-facts & your-view-is-different-from-mine censorship that occurs on (anti)social media sites such as Twitter, Reddit, Instagram is to get rid of section 230. Big social media sites have taken advantage of their protective status for too long and have become corrupt. They need to be responsible for what they show, and more importantly, for what they don't show and try to sil
Re:Section 230 (Score:5, Informative)
"And the moderates had a Fit that Hillary Clinton wasn't up to snuff on the latest IT Best policies and procedures for a person of her rank."
Let's at least be honest about this. Hillary Clinton violated federal records law ANDadministration policy by operating a private email server for public, official business. She further violated federal records law by failing to deliver official emails and communications to the government after leaving her position.
Destruction of those records after subpoenas is an additional infraction.
These are facts, elucidated by the Director of the FBI, publicly, in 2016. Not her misunderstanding of IT practices, nor even of policy, since she was briefed and acknowledged having received the training and orientation necessary for a Cabinet official.
And that's not all, but it is sufficient to refute the argument that she 'just didn't know'... She should have known, and indeed admitted she had been informed.
Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of tweets are supporting the looter violence and Twitter isn't lifting a finger for this 'glorification'.
Are they all president of America with the world's media relaying their words to people who would never waste their time on Twitter?
You can't continually abuse your position for your ego-wanking and then complain when people slap you down before some nobody no one's heard of.
Re:Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:3)
Didn't Trump offer to pay bail for anyone arrested for punching a protestor at his rallies during the election? I'd call that promoting violence.
Re: Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you mean this totally not-violent comment? [thedailybeast.com]
"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said after warning of possible rabble-rousers. "I'll pay the legal fees," he added.
Now, that's just sidling right up to the line and planting your ass on it. It ain't quite saying to commit illegal violence. He is technically asking for self-defense in the event of an about to thrown projectile.
That said, language is a highly redundant thing for a reason. We communicate mostly by the way we say things, rather than what we say. He's giving them permission to act violently, and he's pre-conditioning the reflex. That's a nasty line to walk.
And he just keeps walking it. Look where we are.
Re:Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, what is "supporting the looter violence" about Ilhan Omar's tweets? I'll quote them here:
I am heartbroken.
Horrified at the needless death of George Floyd, another innocent black man murdered by police in our community.
Frustrated that we keep finding ourselves in this position as a city.
Angry that justice still seems out of reach.
Our anger is just.
Our anger is warranted.
And our priority right now must be protecting one another.
Can you explain that?
Re: (Score:3)
That's a pretty ridiculous stretch. It assumes she was talking about the rioting and not just the general anger at his death that was around long before the riots started, and that saying there is cause for it implies that rioting is also justified.
Re:Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:5, Informative)
Your selection of tweets is really bizarre. Some are from before the rule change which isn't retroactive. Some actually seem to be condemning the violence, not supporting it. E.g.
Iâ(TM)m old enough to remember a few weeks ago when people said taking justice into your own hands was vigilantism and we have a criminal justice system for a reason. I guess it only goes one way.
Ashley Rae Groypenberg @Communism_Kills
Deerkin supports rioting.
What a shocking development
@TeeExTee
Along with the Omar tweet I addressed separately it looks like you are just link spamming in the hope that no-one bothers to check.
Re:Some pigs are more equal than others. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's out of the alt-right playbook. Not saying the GP is alt-right, but that's where this tactic comes from. Spam links, hope no-one checks, if they do you have already moved on to the next argument. Asymmetric warfare, spamming links is cheap but checking and rebutting them takes time and you can always try modding the rebuttal down as trolling.
Twitter is full of actual "glorifying violence" (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another example of Twitter doubling down in its political bias. Twitter is full of people actually glorifying violence without repercussions.
There's tons of people at best condoning at worst calling for assaults on cops, more riots and more looting. Throw in the occasional thinly veiled lynching call and you've got the current acceptable-use situation on Twitter. The usual extremists have co-opted the situation, from anti-capitalists, to antifa, to anarchists. And twitter is totally fine with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Just another example of Twitter doubling down in its political bias. Twitter is full of people actually glorifying violence without repercussions.
It's not political bias to target someone who's actively targeting you. I'm sure Trump would have been fine if he didn't throw his executive order temper tantrum the other day.
Come to my house and and make a mess expect a reaction, I don't give a shit if you're blue or red.
Trump Pouts But Anyone Else Would Have Been Banned (Score:4, Insightful)
Glorifying violence or the law enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the big question. There are riots, businesses being looted, buildings set on fire. At this point, is sending in troops to reign in the violent protesters is glorifying violence or is it enforcing the law for the sake of security and peace of the rest?
Twitter isn't helping their case by mislabeling. (Score:3)
The incident that led here was Twitter labeling as false a tweet about fraud in mail-in ballots, which was actually true. Not only is mail-in voting incredibly vulnerable to fraud, there is evidence it happens. People have been convicted of it! Recently!
In the end, it seems like Twitter is almost intentionally trying to bring this to a head in a way that puts them at a great disadvantage. Not only are they openly exercising editorial power, they're doing it wrong!
Thankfully your constitution was written for this. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean the gun nuts aren't all immediately out and ready to protect the nation from a wannabe murderous tyrannical dotard? Wasn't that the whole point?
Functioning democracy requires us to see the tweet (Score:3)
Democracy cannot function if the citizens only see and hear the curated things that our president says. We need to see it all: vitriol, violence, and if there is any - insight and truth. There's 10,000 other things like this that Twitter doesn't censor. There's simply no way to be consistent here. Let the reader be the curator, not Twitter.
Amy Klobuchar declined to prosecute officer (Score:3, Interesting)
Amy Klobuchar declined to prosecute officer at center of George Floyd’s death after previous conduct complaints. [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
This is so disingenuous it is almost laughable.
"In particular, he was involved in the shooting death of a man who had stabbed other people before attacking police, as well as some other undisclosed complaints. Klobuchar did not prosecute Chauvin and other officers involved in the first death, which occurred in October 2006 while she was running for Senate. The case was under investigation when Klobuchar took office in the Senate in January 2007," ... do I have to pick that apart for you or can you do it you
What this actually proves (Score:3)
1. This proves that Twitter is indeed a publisher, not a platform. If you have such "rules" you are a publisher.
2. Twitter is politically motivated and edits selectively according to their bias. Other people on twitter "glorify violence" far more than Trump, yet they are not censored.
I think it's the *rioters* glorifying violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention, they aren't social distancing! Or wearing masks!
If you'd like to see what a "peaceful protest" looks like, look at the protests against what were perceived as excessive COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Remember? Those horrible people who we were supposed to treat as extremely dangerous?
Re:Except it doesn't. (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter flagged it because of the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts". See the earlier discussion on that. It references police brutality against African-Americans.
Re:Glorfying violence?? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's quoting Walter Headley, who is the original source of the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
Odd thing to do really given that Headley's policies were a disaster and actually resulted in rioting and people being killed, rather than diffusing the situation. Also the context makes it clear he wasn't talking about rubber bullets, Headley's men shot people dead.
Re: Glorfying violence?? (Score:4, Interesting)
He's quoting someone from Nixon's convention when he was 21.
In all probability, this was a significant and formative moment in Trump's life. I don't think you get to brush it aside quite so easily. Those kinds of instances in history act as shibboleths for entire generations.
Re:Glorfying violence?? (Score:5, Insightful)
He promised the US military would start using lethal force against the protesters. Using language from a racial conflict in the 60s.
It is common for police to use riot control gear, but when that is the case everyone is careful to say that, because the word 'shooting' by itself is used to describe lethal use of weapons. Between not bothering to mention rubber or other riot control gear and mentioning the military, again not generally used for riot control, it is a stretch to imagine he is referring to riot control methods in his tweet.
Even if he hypothetically did mean either 'oh the crowds going to start shooting' or 'we will shoot (with rubber bullets)', the language itself is dangerous because the more straightforward explanation is that he is threatening lethal force and that perception itself can inspire rioters to double down in 'righteous outrage' or embolden violent racists to 'help put down the riots'.
The threat is horribly ill advised, even if he would authorize military help, the threat is just not going to help anything and probably make it worse.
That said, hiding the tweet with a click-through doesn't do anything at all, except to Streisand effect it further into the stratosphere. Even deleting the Tweet would have done nothing once anyone had a screenshot of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Violent thugs destroying their neighborhood and attacking people need force to stop them, that application of force is legitimate. Act like an animal, get treated like one.
Re: (Score:3)
I am utterly disappointed in you Slashdot.
I never thought you'd put bricks and mortar before a man's life, after 3 police officers held a limp man down and choked the life out of him while a 4th stood guard.
I am disappointed.