Twitch disables Trump’s account indefinitely
theverge.com
theverge.com
"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th"
Why does Twitter want to prevent him from making such a statement on his Twitter account? Would that not be calming the situation, if anything?
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/trump-transition-of...
EDIT: I misread Twitch for Twitter. Alternatively, I'm prescient and this was posted in the wrong thread.
If any tech company were to try to suppress the "facts" that support the "rigged election" narrative, that would only reinforce the their beliefs.
The other side undermining the election results after they lost is not exactly new.
They are both very wrong, in different ways.
On December 9, 2019, Horowitz released his report on the findings of the DOJ OIG investigation. The OIG found no indication that the investigation of Trump and Russia was motivated by political bias, but did make 17 "basic and fundamental" errors and omissions in its warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to surveil Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser on the Trump campaign.[160][5][161][162][163] The report found that the FBI's investigation had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose,[162] stating: "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced" the agency's decision to open the investigation
--- end quote ---
What else?
Ah, I also remember Obama calling for months that the election was stolen, inciting violence, calling for forceful removal of government officials and obstructing transition teams. I also remember Obama refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power until after his supporters stormed the Capitol and his own party (just as complicit) turned against him and certified election results.
This is a clear escalation but the escalation is due to the deteriorating of our political discourse. I would not have been surprised if we saw something similar if Trump had won a 2nd term.
When you say similar, what do you mean? An armed mob breaking in to the Capital to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college votes and the President-elect? Requiring the evacuation of the entire Congress and the Vice-President to ensure their safety and avoid a potential hostage situation? And then planting pipe bombs in the Capital?
Or do you mean something else?
[EDIT: Look. Let’s be real. There is not a semblance of similarity and there hasn’t been for the past four years. What we saw today was unprecedented and seditious, on the part of the mob, the President himself, and anyone else involved in the planning or execution of this attempted coup. And anyone who can’t see the truth needs to do a real hard gut check right now, no joke.
Let’s also be real. White supremacists are in the minority and their numbers are dwindling. Their days are numbered. There’s more of us than them and at some point if they push hard enough all of us patriotic American citizens who actually respect the Constitution and the vision of justice the United States, at its best, represents, well, we will push back.
These folks lost the Civil War. If they really do want to bring it, it’ll be a tragedy and waste of human life, and, it won’t be a war they’ll win.
And any Trumpists, at this point, go fuck yourselves. You should be ashamed of the treasonous behavior you’ve enabled.
That’s the real talk, and people who hate on it, hate on it because they recognize the truth - you know it deep down, and, you are ashamed of yourselves.
Consider your actions. Anyone can change for the better, as difficult and unpleasant as the process is, it’s always worth the effort.
If I was religious like that I’d pray for you, because you don’t even know how badly you need some forgiveness.]
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/gallery/electora...
There are two ways forward: We make a really big deal out of this and therefore implicitly demand that protests should be suppressed with massive force. Alternatively, we can admit that this is about as peaceful an outcome as we could have possibly hoped for, all things considered.
They pushed past armed guards, broke barriers, entered the chambers of an active joint session of congress forcing the entirety of the USA legislative branch and its Vice President at the very moment they were certifying a presidential election into a secure bunker.
... and you think that's "about as peaceful an outcome as we could possibly have hoped for"?
I genuinely don't understand. This is the kind of operation of government that is supposed to never be disruptible. If past mobs knew it was this easy then we could have had a zillion coups by now.
You're saying they weren't murderers I guess? That they didn't blow up the building or take hostages (though there is footage of a guy with zip ties that looks like he wanted to)? I mean, yeah, that would be worse. This is still unimaginably bad.
https://twitter.com/kristin__wilson/status/13473283250191646...
I'll go with this one, from Cambridge Dictionary:
"an attack on a building or town in which a lot of destruction is caused and many valuable things are stolen"
> ... and you think that's "about as peaceful an outcome as we could possibly have hoped for"?
Yes, as peaceful as we could have hoped for, considering that many of these people believe a satanic cult has undermined the US government and defrauded their rightful president out of a second term.
> I genuinely don't understand. This is the kind of operation of government that is supposed to never be disruptible. If past mobs knew it was this easy then we could have had a zillion coups by now.
You don't automatically achieve a coup by entering some building and interrupting some bureaucratic process, no matter how symbolic it may be. Biden got elected.
> This is still unimaginably bad.
You must lack imagination.
> You don't automatically achieve a coup by entering some building and interrupting some bureaucratic process
Sorry, but that's EXACTLY how coups work in the real world. You disrupt the government in such a way that the rule of law fails. In fact, it's been reported that at least one Trump goal was to push certification out beyond the 11 day (I think, details are fuzzy) deadline in the electoral count act and force the house to decide.
You're simply saying that it didn't work. But that's down as much to luck (a smallish crowd and multiple barriers to cross) and architecture (cold war escape tunnels) as it is to anything fundamental. It is VERY easy to imagine an alternate universe where Pelosi and Pence are still being held hostage right now.
Come on. Rule of law doesn't stop working just because a couple of politicians don't get to sign papers on schedule. If it was that easy, the country wouldn't last a month without a successful coup.
> In fact, it's been reported that at least one Trump goal was to push certification out beyond the 11 day (I think, details are fuzzy) deadline in the electoral count act and force the house to decide.
I'd think the supreme court would have to decide if that's constitutional. If it is, then it's a crazy legal loophole and Trump would just be the first to exploit it.
> You're simply saying that it didn't work.
No. I'm saying that this "insurrection" is being blown out of proportion. Biden is elected. Trump has called his goons home.
> It is VERY easy to imagine an alternate universe where Pelosi and Pence are still being held hostage right now.
Sure, but moving forward, should we judge these people by what one might imagine could have happened, not what actually happened? I don't think so.
Sorry (and apologies to Godwin but this is legitimate) but Hitler taking power in 1933 was through a "crazy legal loophole" too. Just stop it. Take it seriously. This was a failed coup, but still a coup. Historically, failed coups (c.f. Hitler in 1923) often get repeated, successfully.
Perhaps, but that wasn't a coup. Hitler actually won a democratic election.
> Just stop it. Take it seriously. This was a failed coup, but still a coup.
I think that's called a "coup attempt". Call it whatever you want, it is what is, not what it could have been. Either way, it couldn't have been successful, unless it somehow convinced senators to not certify the election, and even then there would've been a legal process ahead.
> Historically, failed coups (c.f. Hitler in 1923) often get repeated, successfully.
Trump getting legally re-elected in 2024 is of course a possibility. Maybe he'll somehow become a real dictator then. If that happens, you're allowed to call me "Mr. Chamberlain".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
His election to chancellor was arguably democratic. Everything that created the Third Reich was para/extra-legal machinations (c.f. the Reichstag fire!) of exactly the form that we saw attempted on Tuesday.
Trump and his mob weren't nearly as talented, so they failed. I still remain horrified that you won't take seriously what happened.
Trump had four years to aggregate power through emergency laws, like Hitler. He had a golden opportunity to do so with COVID. He did not do it.
As much as you may want Trump to be like Hitler, so that you may call him and his supporters fascists, the actual facts do not support it. I stand by that. Feel free to disagree.
Page 48. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
Few people cast doubt on the votes themselves however in 2016 and that Trump was the legitimate winner.
In this case there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud after being litigated through the courts and acknowledgement as such by many republican Secretaries of State, senators, etc.
There's also a long running argument in American politics about voter registration. Over the years both sides have had victories but after the elections no one claims the results of those elections were fraudulent.
Yeah, they do.
The election is what defines the legitimate government; if it really had been falsified[1], then anyone who participated in the falsification would be a usurper, and the government instated by the falsified election would be fake. If something like this actually happened, then it would hardly be insane to consider it your patriotic duty to put a stop to it.
The metaphor is overused as hell, but it is apt: Trump shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre, and now he's acting all surprised that a few people got trampled in the rush to get out.
Anybody who believes him at this point obviously has brain worms, but being a notorious liar doesn't exempt you from libel and sedition laws. It is also irrelevant whether the mob sincerely believes the election was stolen, or whether they're using it as an excuse; slander is still slander.
[1]: Using ad-tech to manipulate the way people vote, as the Cambridge Analytica conspiracy theory alleges, is not falsification.
Yesterday, Trump still had an unlikely but legal way to prevent Biden from becoming president. Today he does not, so it makes no sense to push any further.
This has been Trump, forever. He strings together contradictions in every sentence he can, and when he can't, he makes sure to contradict or make a random topic change within the next sentence.
Why does he do this? It's a rhetorical trick. That means every time he speaks, most people find something in it that they want to hear. He makes sure not to say anything specific unless it's obvious that he's embellishing it; then if you don't like what he says, it sounds like it was a joke or off the cuff. This has been his whole platform. Say so many things, with so many interpretations, with so little factual basis, that most people can find something they like, and almost no one can pin him down for saying something awful. You just expect him to be grandiose and full of shit, and he is, so it's hard to be upset, as long as you find him charismatic.
The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election. Today it does not, the election is over, there is no recourse. Trump has nothing to gain from any further unrest.
> but what are you implying here? That he is still hedging a plot for a coup? Doubtful.
I think that you are giving him credit he's not due. He's not someone who creates and executes long term, complex plans. He acts on emotion; whatever he's feeling right then, and takes actions that will coerce people into feeling the same way.
He's angry that Biden won and that the certification of the vote is going to happen. Thus the certification is bad, and anyone going along with it is bad, so he says whatever will make the crowd think it's bad.
> The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election.
No, that's not a fact. This was never going to happen. The electors were never going to get scared and overturn the will of the voters. He's a simpleton; he didn't like that he was losing, so he demonized everyone involved with that bad thing that he doesn't like. This is something he's been doing his entire life, and it's effective as long as he has the money, influence, and smart people on the payroll to shape his vitriol and gusto into reality.
Cherry picking one sentence of a post that is "calming" is what is disingenuous.
I’ve always found this to make his statements incoherent.
Evidently his supporters didn’t believe that coherent statements and any semblance of consistency were important though.
The transition starts way before January 20th. It starts immediately follwing presidential election. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_tra...
Trump didn't even acknowledge he would agree to a peaceful transition of power until today when he lost all avenues (however imaginary) of staying in power.
Quotes:
--- start quote ---
The General Services Administration Administrator, Emily Murphy, initially refused to issue the "ascertainment" letter declaring Biden the "apparent winner", on the basis that the election result was disputed. The declaration would mark the official start of the transition. Withholding it denied the Biden transition team full funds, secure office space, and access to agencies
Biden had also been denied daily classified national security briefings.
Further, the State Department denied access to communications from foreign leaders, leaving the Biden team to communicate through other unofficial channels.
-- end quote ---
Ah, how nevertheless an orderly transition this is, indeed.
Sorry, but that framing is disingenuous. Trump was suspended when he incited a mob to march to the capitol and "fight" to "stop" a joint session of congress, who then invaded and sacked the seat of government of the United States.
Later, after all this, he posted (for the very first time ever!) that he'd accept the results of the election. So... that's good. But it's not why he was banned.
If you want any other behavior you’d have to clarify the immunities and/or expectations around platforming government officials explicitly in law, and I am afraid what this congress would come up with.
Many of the people who work on those platforms don't want to be complicit in a coup.
But how can we agree on the principle of censorship?
I mean, if we agree with the idea of censorship, we also mechanically agree to get censored tomorrow by whoever is the new censor.
Shouldn’t it be the same rule for everyone?
More broadly, I disagree with your use of the word “censor.” Trump can say whatever he wants. But it doesn’t follow that if some company doesn’t want to publish his book or stream his video that it’s censorship.
Some places don’t have moderation (parler). Other places do (Twitch). That’s fine.
I’m not talking specifically about Twitch.
At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.
Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.
Ok, but this article is about Twitch.
> At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.
So anything that is "public" cannot have moderation? A chess forum has to allow Osama bin Laden to post his political rants? Should it be illegal to run a website with moderation?
> Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.
I'll say the same thing I am saying today: it's their own platform and they can moderate it however they want. If I don't like their moderation, I am perfectly capable of going elsewhere.
I'm not even in the US!!
They'll welcome him with open arms.
Edit: I will be more blunt since some replies show they don't understand what I find weird:
Why do you need a private social media company to stop your president from planting terrorism in your own country because he thinks the election is fake instead of congress/government/whatever??!
Nothing prevented this president or any other president from just opening a 24x7 conference call line where he can just blather whatever he feels like at any time to anyone listening.
But, none of them did.
I think the issue in 2016 was too many people wanted the job. You can agree/disagree whether the primary field included 'outstanding' people, but the sheer number of candidates allowed the loud mouth to stand out.
The problem is, Trump = big ratings for the media on both sides. MSNBC is as much to blame as Fox. It's also imho partially the DNC's fault (the left has less choices), and they picked a flawed candidate who would've never won against any of the RNC choices.
She had a criminal on-going investigation, which true or not should've been like, woah, let's maybe put someone else in, who might not be indicted.
The entire system is fubarred and there's plenty of blame to go around, I don't know where we go from here, and I highly doubt a Biden administration is going to bring much joy either to a lot of American's who are suffering.
I do hope we make it harder for something like this to happen again (for fascists to take such strong control in America).
Some sort of approval voting or instant-runoff would probably provide better outcomes.
I think it's obvious if the US worked this way, the Republican party wouldn't have selected Trump. Perhaps you end up just electing the same old boring white guy time and time again.
So, we have primaries for each party. Some states are open (anybody can vote, but only for one party's candidates) while other states are closed (only party members can vote). Then, after the primary winners are selected, there is a general election where to select among each party's winners.
Most of these elections are plurality, although some states require majority (with runoff between 2 top candidates).
Basically, this leads to extreme candidates winning the primaries, then trying to pivot to center for the general election. It also means that if a primary has many options, as the GOP 2016 primary did, you get results like Trump - all the reasonable candidates cancelled each other out.
Pivoting to approval voting would be relatively easy - the ballots don't change much (just allow 1+ choice per race). We could maintain party/state primaries and a national general, but move them all to approval. That would avoid 3rd party spoilers and hopefully prevent the fringe of either party becoming the nominee/winner.
This ignore the added complexity of the Electoral College. That's an anachronism for another post.
You can think of election cycles as a series of games of rock paper scissors. Not uncommon for the winner of the primary to be a guy that can't win in general. Scissors beats paper in the primary. Goes up against rock in the general and loses.
The issue was that a relatively large number of them had financial support and sizeable backing within the Republican party until late in the campaign. That's less likely to happen if there's one outstanding candidate. For example, it didn't happen in 2020, not because nobody else wanted to be President, but because the GOP overwhelmingly agreed that Trump was their best bet.
However I have no sympathy for him as his actions are ridiculous on any level let alone as President. Being a Libertarian I am not a fan of big government and I am certainly not a fan of anyone suggesting what he has with how to do deal with an election outcome he does not like.
Sorry, this is not how we are supposed to work and I am actually disappointed that Congress hasn't just pulled the plug as a whole since the debacle started to unfold. Pence has shown he can be put in place, he will be a modern day Ford if not for a short period of time but he should take mantle if not just for the few weeks we need him.
The sad part is this elections are frauds has been building for years and both sides are to blame for creating an environment so poisoned that all elections that don't turn out right are considered unjust. Now we have reached the final stage which is violence.
I mean, even back in 2016, he made it clear that he won't accept the results of any election he didn't win. (And then went on to spend the next year spreading lies and conspiracy theories about how he actually won the popular vote.)
He's just following through on past behaviour. In a country with less robust civic systems, this is the sort of rhetoric that you can leverage into becoming dictator-for-life.
Keep them raised if you'd watched it.
Anyone?
For example, this person, http://twitch.tv/anthonypatchofficial makes a living via Patreon donations spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
He claims vaccines are made using HIV, among other nonsense.
He has 100+ viewers in average. He could not make a living doing this if Patreon and Twitch deplatformed him.
The only reason that guy gets up in the morning is to make the pandemic worse than it already is.