Having a Twitter account is not a right.

If you incite violence on Twitter, the company can - and should - stop you. Good call.

Plans for “future armed protests” are spreading on Twitter and elsewhere, the company warned, “including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021”.
https://t.co/N8upH04568
Yes, people who boosted their careers off of Trump - his sycophants, his kids & people like Haley, who helped him attack and undermine human rights around the world - are boo-hooing right now.

Always beware of powerful people pretending to be victims.

https://t.co/0A5D5eJFvL
But no one should react with glee. The president of the United States has been inciting violence, and Republican Party leaders, along with a willing, violent mob, have been aiding his attempts to overthrow the democratic process.

That's the real story here.
The dangers are real, and we've all seen them. That Twitter even had to contemplate banning any politician for inciting violence is awful. That they had to ban the sitting president for it is even worse.
This puts it well.
https://t.co/wJPejtAvWy
Yes, the power that Twitter and other social media companies have over the public debate is something that should worry all of us. But online or offline, no one has a right incite violence.
Just who should be making decisions like this is a debate to have, for sure, and the sooner, the better. But at the moment, Twitter has the power, and thus the responsibility, to act. So, good that they did.
And yes, there are also questions about consistency of decision-making in such cases, but to be fair to Twitter, when it comes to incitement to violence & threats of violence, the company has become much better at cracking down on that in recent years. Not perfect, but better.
In my experience - and I report maybe 5 or 10 accounts to Twitter every week - they respond to threats of violence in particular quite quickly. Sometimes within a hour even. (at least threats in English)
A good point here, as well...

It also happens to human rights activists, too.
https://t.co/csD3eOoHX7
And this:
https://t.co/IOya3Whbb0
Of all the many arguments around Twitter banning Trump for his inciting violence, the dumbest I've seen so far is, "they shouldn't do it because it enrages Trumpists".

Trying to appease extremists never works.

More from Trump

It’s not clear how Dr. Sean Conley has determined Trump will no longer need to isolate only 10 days after symptom onset.

Looks like the CDC Guidelines say Trump should be in the category that needs to isolate for 20 days after symptom onset.👇

Plus ...



2. Fauci on Thursday used a (test-based) approach, in which case, per Fauci:

Trump needs to isolate for 10 days after symptoms RESOLVE (not symptoms onset) and then two negative tests.

Note: based on his coughing on Hannity last night, Trump’s symptoms haven’t resolved yet.


3. Here’s a longer quote from Fauci (via @MarionRenault):

https://t.co/oRdrtxQe80


4. Also noteworthy: on Hannity last night, Trump wouldn’t say he’s tested negative.👇

Thus failing one of the conditions required by Fauci for Trump to be considered no longer contagious.


5/5. This resource on coronavirus (UpToDate) has been specially made available to the public. It describes the test-based and non-test-based approaches.
Some anons have notices "the" and "dam" and "the" vs. "to"...

Their posts included here as a thread...

https://t.co/OT6Z7ZAERH


https://t.co/d3Ct3UDKQd


https://t.co/yzMXiCBIXA


https://t.co/wpxloyHycj

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x