Twitter Execs Sought Rules to Ban Trump Alone, Files Say

Senior Twitter executives sought on January 7, 2021, the day after the Capitol riot, "to create justifications to ban Trump - seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders - express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban," according to the fourth installment of the Twitter Filesreleased Saturday night.

"For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump," author Michael Shellenberger and journalist Leighton Woodhouse write, quoting the executives themselves: "'Blocking a world leader from Twitter,' it wrote in 2018, 'would hide important info... [and] hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.'"

Following the events of January 6, internal and external pressure on then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey began to grow, according to the report. Former first lady Michelle Obama and several other prominent individuals and groups called on Twitter to permanently ban the president…



…The report notes that Twitter's staff and senior execuitves "were overwhelmingly progressive," pointing out that in 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of Twitter staff's political donations went to Democrats.

But the bias wass deeper than simply donating to Democrats.…










Read more news: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/twitter-files/2022/12/10/id/1099978/






This breaking news story is shocking but not a big surprise to us. Twitter was rife with bias and openly taking sides. They trampled upon the 1st amendment too.

 

Trump was targeted by the prior fascist regime at Twitter and other big tech social media places. Musk buying Twitter is the salvation of the 1st amendment to the constitution.

 

Not surprising, the lefts irrational hatred for Trump has caused a lot of logically inconsistent behavior from Dems.

 

Imagine if the Weimar Republic had just kept hitler locked up after the first attempt to seize power. Only him. Probably would have worked.

 

What 1st Amendment rules did Twitter break? Pro tip, only government can violate your 1st amendment rights. Were my 1st amendment rights violated when Hannity kicked me off his forum 15 years ago?

I don’t suppose there is a chance we can discuss Twitter’s pathetic policies while agreeing there are no constitutional violations, here?

 

They let him post 57 000 times and warned him many times about rules violation, but after Jan-6 they had to block him. And no, first amendment has nothing to do with how social media run their websites.

You have no clue what the 1st amendment is about.

 

Agreed.
The person you responded to has an egregious misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment...

 

Trump can always come back to Twitter, but not Kanye West.

 

True. He just should have said free speech instead of first amendment.

 

They blocked him after Jan 6th because they didn't want the truth to show that he was not inciting violence, in fact, he was promoting peace.

But the jig is up, Twitter execs are exposed and so is the DNC.

 

I see. So the 57 000 posts where he was not inciting violence was ok, but the one after Jan-6 was not. I'm sure that makes sense to you, but it failed the basics common sense test.

 

The left had an agenda and they needed to silence Trump. Twitter was happy to help. What happened prior is meaningless.

 

Exactly! The government cannot impede the right to speak, but corporations working for the government can crush individuals who speak out. The Ministry of Truth works through Twitter and FaceBook.

 

Perhaps you can clarify your meaning.

". . .57,000 posts . . . not inciting violence was ok, but the one (not inciting violence) after Jan-6 was not."

Is that what you meant?

 

Well, why wouldn’t there be specific rules for Trump? There is one current president. Certainly Twitter had allowed him a lot more leeway than other individuals regarding posting the crap he posted.

 

What right to free speech did Twitter violate? I’m aware of no laws requiring companies to give you a venue for your speech.

 

before Trump, they never thought they would have to ban a politician for inciting a riot

when people do things like that, new rules are created

we have seen it here, new rules come into play when things change, we had special rules for the tea party, remember the tea bag hats for instance

Another nothing burger

 

Musk doesn't believe in free speech, I guess </end sarcasm>

 

Not surprising, the Trumpers irrational love for Trump has caused a lot of logically inconsistent behavior from the right.

 

Incorrect

 

He seems more bent on stirring the pot than actually making a profit with Twitter.

 

Then you haven't read the 1st amendment.

 

Our nation's commitment to Free Speech far exceeds the First Amendment.

The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade

Twitter was participating in a form of sedition, along with the agencies that they cooperated with...

Jonathan Turley: Dupe or Designated Defendant? The Criminal Case Against Jack Dorsey

'Potential criminal liability for Twitter executives, particularly Jack Dorsey, after the release of the Twitter files. The files contradict denials of Dorsey that there was no censorship or shadow banning targeting conservatives. Dorsey and others should clearly retain counsel in light of the contradictions in these files.'

It's all fun and games until you are busted engaging in sedition and violating the rights of your fellow Americans to rig a presidential election.

 

Where in the constitution does it say I owe you a platform for your speech?

 

Silence him AFTER he was voted out of the office. Sorry, but its still not making any sense.

I think Lousiana75 was trying to say that, yes.