![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nwhikerSo. Kamala Harris has officially called on Jack Dorsey to ban Trump from twitter.
That's not gonna happen. As others have said, it's the only thing that distinguishes them from Facebook.
My first reaction was oh hail no, free speech etc, even for scum.
But then....
Leaving aside the fact that twitter is a private entity, and they can ban him if they want to.
Trump incites hate and is currently fomenting civil unrest, calling the impeachment inquiry against him a "coup", and insisting that any action against him might trigger a civil war etc.
twiiter has the right -and I'd argue the responsibility, which they clearly don't exert- to ban hate speech.
But here's the kicker, at this point in history. twitter gives Trump access to people, constantly, and without any media filter. There are no reporters to come on the TV after a particularly stupid and lying rant to correct the record. He can spout whatever he wants, to a large number of people, and there is no journalistic scaffolding around this to explain, debunk etc.
Which is why I'd argue for a ban. Impeachment is a legal process, and hopefully one that will be conducted fairly by the House of Representatives, based on solid data of true crimes and misdemeanors(unlike, say, someone lying about a blowjob....). I truly do not want to see it turn into anything more... physical, on the streets, and violent. This is a possibility, as Trump continues to spout bullshit on twitter about how he's the victim here, rather than so fucking STUPID he tried to extort the Ukrainians during a RECORDED call.
Also, about his calling for a "moot" on the Southern border, two things:
-- as smartasses on twitter have said... shouldn't the moot be on the Canadian border?
-- a moat with alligators and snakes, spikes on top of the wall. Why are the spikes not covered with curare? And what's next, catapults flinging dead cow carcasses into Mexico?
That's not gonna happen. As others have said, it's the only thing that distinguishes them from Facebook.
My first reaction was oh hail no, free speech etc, even for scum.
But then....
Leaving aside the fact that twitter is a private entity, and they can ban him if they want to.
Trump incites hate and is currently fomenting civil unrest, calling the impeachment inquiry against him a "coup", and insisting that any action against him might trigger a civil war etc.
twiiter has the right -and I'd argue the responsibility, which they clearly don't exert- to ban hate speech.
But here's the kicker, at this point in history. twitter gives Trump access to people, constantly, and without any media filter. There are no reporters to come on the TV after a particularly stupid and lying rant to correct the record. He can spout whatever he wants, to a large number of people, and there is no journalistic scaffolding around this to explain, debunk etc.
Which is why I'd argue for a ban. Impeachment is a legal process, and hopefully one that will be conducted fairly by the House of Representatives, based on solid data of true crimes and misdemeanors(unlike, say, someone lying about a blowjob....). I truly do not want to see it turn into anything more... physical, on the streets, and violent. This is a possibility, as Trump continues to spout bullshit on twitter about how he's the victim here, rather than so fucking STUPID he tried to extort the Ukrainians during a RECORDED call.
Also, about his calling for a "moot" on the Southern border, two things:
-- as smartasses on twitter have said... shouldn't the moot be on the Canadian border?
-- a moat with alligators and snakes, spikes on top of the wall. Why are the spikes not covered with curare? And what's next, catapults flinging dead cow carcasses into Mexico?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}