Frankly, this is how all social media platforms should handle banning individual users.

Why cant the GOVT ( who has all the right answers) just ban FB.
TO bad Clumpy cant start his own site... reminds me of that healthcare plan that he is releasing in 2 months.

Someone's upset about his lack of daily trumparded drivel. Losing that blog must've stung for ya too.

Lol — few people were happier to see Trump banned than I. I think they could have/should have banned him much earlier.

What if Twitter had banned Trump as soon as he started slandering President Obama’s citizenship without proof? Something to ponder.

But!

The justification for the ban is equally important. Punting to an “independent oversight board” (which then punted back to FB) and then kicking the can down the road another 6 months to 2 years is not a real answer. It only fuel’s the Right’s grievance politics and Trump’s victimhood complex.

What they need to do is come out with clear and concise language stating: This is not acceptable. This is how you comply. If you can, you’re back. If you can’t or don’t want to, you’re out.

If it’s as simple as “stop telling lies about the U.S. election and radicalizing half of America to the brink of Civil War,” then say so.

So you’re ok with human rights violations

“Human rights violations”? Like the people who died here as a direct result of the lies Trump was allowed to tell on social media?

The right of freedom of speech isn’t unlimited — never has been. Incitement to violence is a well-established exception. Trump’s lies and innuendo imploring his most committed followers to do what they did became that, as we saw.

Free speech is unlimited it always has been until people didn’t like people speaking their opinions trump told the people to peacefully protest and people cosplayed as Chewbacca yes it was stupid but not an insurrection trump didn’t incite anything but if I ever saw incitement it was when Maxine waters said “ say that chauvin is guilty or we’re gonna destroy more cities and steal more coffee pods from the DD

Well, you’re just plain wrong about free speech being unlimited. You’re entitled to your opinion about the Maxine Waters comment, it was a rash and stupid thing for her to say, but no one actually burned or stole anything afterwards.

Trump on the other hand orchestrated Jan. 6 entirely — blew smoke about the election for months, held a rally right down the street from Congress coincidentally timed for *the very day* Congress was due to certify the Electoral College vote. Then had guest speakers calling for “trial by combat” and himself telling his supporters to “fight like hell.” He specifically told them to march down Pennsylvania Ave. and confront Congress.

—THEN after the rally when all hell broke loose, Trump stayed cooped up in the White House for hours watching it all play out on TV. (Trump did not actually go with the crowd, as he promised. If he had, would things have been better or worse? Hard to say).
—THEN Trump failed to call in the National Guard.
—THEN he got on the phone with congresspeople he thought were in his camp about overturning the election.
—THEN he didn’t tweet out any sort of message to his supporters telling them to stop until late in the afternoon.

Coup attempt? Maybe, maybe not.

But if you can’t see that as AT LEAST incitement followed by severe dereliction of duty, then you don’t know what those terms mean.

Tl;dr you are blinded by your partisan goggles, wake up man

what was burned or stolen in Jan 6 I don’t see how it’s an insurrection. Should they be put to jail? Yes that was stupid of them. Should they be deemed insurrectionists that made 9/11 look like a tea party? No. Other people planned Jan 6 and you can’t deny he said and I almost exactly quote “March up to the capital and peacefully let your voices be heard” and they didn’t listen so nope. no incitement. if you wanna believe it stay in fantasy land. also we have our human right to ABSOLUTE free speech under no circumstances is it morally ok to take it away it is unlimited how long you can speak your opinion in the eyes of the constitution

Dozens of officers were injured, people were killed, things were in fact stolen from Congressmembers’ offices and the building itself — it was a riot, plain and simple

As for what Trump said in his speech that day (a characteristically incoherent rabble-rouser), it contained some violent talk and some gestures toward the idea of peaceful protest. But in its totality it’s obvious how the crowd received it.

If a mob boss tells his lieutenants: “Well, I hope that double-crossing snitch doesn’t end up sleeping with the fishes tomorrow.” And then the alleged snitch is found dead in his apartment the next day under suspicions of foul play that are ultimately tied back to the mob lieutenants?

Then what conclusions are we to draw about what the actual meaning behind the mob boss’s words?

Also not people. Person