This is a surprisingly good analysis.
It ends with a comparison between Costolo’s call for violence and Trump’s.
Can anyone make a case for why Costolo’s tweet is not a violation of twitter’s TOS’s and Trump’s is?
It ends with a comparison between Costolo’s call for violence and Trump’s.
Can anyone make a case for why Costolo’s tweet is not a violation of twitter’s TOS’s and Trump’s is?
I agree the author did an excellent job of describing the situation and its pertinent angles and facets.
However that seems to me to be all the distinction is. Costolo is a public figure. A multi millionaire, almost certainly richer than Trump, and there are violent activists who support his kind of rhetoric too.
It seems pretty clear that Twitter not censoring his tweets the way they have with Trump is based on a political distinction.
You could even see his statement as declaring Twitter itself to be an activist organization that sees revolution as inevitable and is working towards that aim.
That would undermine the idea that it’s somehow at a different level of seriousness to Trump’s tweets.
Costolo is talking about murdering business people whose ethics he disagrees with.
He could be instead be talking about voting out Trump and reinvigorating democratic institutions, but he isn’t.
I made a case. I didn't say I subscribe to it. I don't.
That's what I tried (and apparently failed) to convey by concluding "it's a violation, all the same"
Right, he's only proclaiming that he'd be happy if they were shot...
The shooting happens when the revolution happens, which is unavoidable outcome of their behavior: "are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution".
Right-wing persecution complex is so funny.
Anything else is consequence of someone else’s intent to kill them, or negligence.