Frick them

I assume they are allowed to exist because of a hypocritical standard enforced selectively by the site.

And you know what they say about assumptions.

Trump was banned from Twitter not because of hashtags but because of many tweets promoting an event that threatened the lives of politicians.

Perhaps when a hashtag is responsible for this; Twitter will show more scrutiny. Otherwise the hypocrisy is a false dichotomy.

I thought they banned him because he challenged the election. Worried about political violence? Not any other promotion of violence? It’s ok to tweet about other riots or organize attacks on other federal property? It’s ok to call for the killing of Americans like that Iranian mullah? That’s not hypocritical?

Except they only banned him after the insurrection. Not before.

The hashtag alone has been used within and without the context. Twitter has tried to ban certain hashtags before with little to no success. So most tweets and accounts that are scrutinized need more context to result in a disciplinary action.

His tweets, which they allowed him to post and promote his conspiracy of election fraud despite many reliable sources saying otherwise were given warnings as the sole disciplinary action instead of what would’ve happened if he was a regular civilian. Many Twitter users (both liberal and conservative) posted tweets that were word for word what Trump wrote and were banned! Yet Trump was allowed to continue. This is why the warnings were placed on his tweets in the first place.

It is potentially illegal to edit or remove the words of the President so he was given exceptions. But they are allowed to ban him for abusing this exception to continue to break their terms of service by posting tweets that broke their terms of services for other users.

When the attack on the Capitol happened, Twitter decided to ultimately ban Trump and prevent him from continuing to use their platform which may have been a contributing factor to the attack.

Initially, the ban was only suppose to be for a week, but Trump tried to create alt accounts, much as an angry child would, so the ban was extended to a permanent one as a result.

No, not everyone is going to get banned for using a dubious hashtag. But high profile accounts that continue to break their tos may ( and should be) scrutinized harder than the few accounts that slip through Twitters moderation.

I would not call it explicitly hypocrisy.

Actually they banned him during the riot. Insurrection would mean a plan to take over. There was no such plan. That’s a harpy shrieker talking point like “they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher” which was a false claim.

Suffice it to say I don’t think Twitter gets to decide to ban the sitting POTUS regardless of who the POTUS is. Their blatant skew towards banning conservatives is well documented. You are ok with that. I’m not. I don’t believe twitters corporate censors are the definitive word on truth. Pull 230 protections and make them act as what they are publishers who actively editorialize information.

There was no insurrection. All you have is lies.

"Their blatant skew towards banning conservatives is well documented. You are ok with that. I’m not."

Do not tell me what I am and am not okay with.

Twitter absolutely has the power to decide which individuals do or don't get banned. By your admission, they didn't ban him due to discrimination of his politics; but rather by his involvement with his rally that turned into a riot. Since he used Twitter as one of the resources to organize the rally that turned violent, they had just cause to ban him.

Well I guess I pegged that you were ok with banning conservatives and believing that Twitter is the arbiter of truth in the United States. Of course they had to ban the POTUS. The fact is more about the riot went out over Facebook and YouTube. You have no idea who organized the protest that the riot broke out at. Apparently it wasn’t the president because he was just found not guilty by the kangaroo court of Pelosi and Schumer. Again.

“he was just found not guilty by the kangaroo court of Pelosi and Schumer. Again.”

Usually a kangaroo court results in a miscarriage of justice. Are you saying Trump should’ve been found guilty?

Dont tell me what I’m saying. Hahahaha. Yes but Pelosi and Schumer’s kangaroo court is so inept they failed to convict at a phony trial much less a real one.

So a direct statement to "kill all" doesn't count as inciting violence. But being told to protest peacefully does count?

No, I think President Trump was banned because the left are totalitarian control freaks.

Just because you think it, doesn't make it true.

For about four years, the left have ranted and raved about Trump's Twitter account being given special privileges in months leading up to the election when they said they would crack down on the spread of misinformation. Instead of taking his posts down or banning him, they instead allowed his posts to remain and called them either misleading or unproven; beyond their need. The right then complained that Trump was being harassed by Twitter for this when in fact this was meant to be a compromise.

Trump continued to post false information; and when that resulted in the insurrection at the capitol; Twitter banned him.

All Twitter has done is protect their interests. That's called business. Capitalism can be ugly to partisan hacks; but it is also practical.

Just because you don't understand why Twitter wouldn't want to be potentially sued by the Federal Government, or a class action lawsuit of any potential victims of the President; doesn't make them control freaks. They let him have the platform while President.

The totalitarian control freaks you fear; wanted him to be banned in 2017.

Twitter only got involved when their interests were directly at stake.

Hey, when has Twitter posted warnings about Democrats posting false information? Be specific please.

Only Trump got that exception because Twitter’s lawyers said they could run into as much legal trouble as Trump did when he blocked people from his account if they altered or took took down his tweets. This was the argument they hid behind when leftists demanded Trump be banned.

Banning him after he lost an election and his peers insisting on upholding the constitution despite Trump’s refusal of the results was a very small risk in hindsight.

Most one-term Presidents fail to run again anyway.

“ All Twitter has done is protect their interests. That's called business.”

Can you stop these moronic lies? If their goal were to make money, they would never have done this. They’re driving away both readers and posters.

Seriously, can you stop telling idiotic lies?

Just because you don’t like what I’m saying doesn’t make it “idiotic” or a “lie”

How do you *make money* by *driving away* customers and attention? The claim is idiotic.