I don’t know whether this comes as a surprise to anyone, but, Twitter left dictators and evil people promoting mass violence and genocide on the platform, while they banned President Donald Trump for fears he would provoke bigger protests in the USA. Elon Musk sheds light on this after his acquisition of Twitter by releasing email conversations from the previous Twitter ‘administration’.
What is most shocking is the revelation that Twitter staff feared that Donald Trump’s use of the words ‘American patriots’ is a code for ‘incitement to further violence’. Using this bullsh**ty thesis they came up with the decision to ban him from the platform.
Elon Musk Exposes Twitter Woke Staff That Banned Donald Trump While Letting More Dangerous Twitter Users Stay On The Platform
However, they left the Iranian Ayatollah and the Malaysian PM on the platform. These two are people that publicly and shamelessly called for mass violence. They advocated for the slaughtering of millions of people, for God’s sake. If this is not a reason for a ban, I don’t know what is.
The shocking part is that the Twitter staffers were very well aware of these two figures. It is not like they were unaware of what they preached on social media. However, they decided not to take any action against them.
The revelation of this shocking info comes as Matt Taibbi continues to publish Twitter confidential emails that Elon Musk gave to him. The path to absolute free speech fueled Elon Musk’s decision to release the emails. According to him, nothing should remain hidden from the public. Ever since his acquisition, he strives to not suppress anyone on the platform. Elon Musk reserves the ban only for rare extreme cases.
Previous emails revealed how Twitter purposely suppressed the republican commentators Charlie Kirk, Dan Bongino, and many others during the pandemic. It is like they used the period when the world was in a panic to do these moves against one political party in the USA.
People now see this as something which was systematically and purposely done in order to harm one political party, while giving a platform to spread their voice to another.
Imagine that just a couple of months before the Donald Trump ban, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad shared a tweet stating that Muslims ‘have the right’ to murder millions of French people because they need ‘revenge’.
“Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.” – the Prime Minister wrote on Twitter. Anybody with a sane mind would think that this kind of statement is intolerable. However, Twitter didn’t think like this. They deleted the tweet after some time but left the Malaysian PM on the platform.
Could anyone at Twitter explain how this is reasonable? What is the logic behind these moves?
This is not all. Three years prior to the Donald Trump ban, Twitter faced another call for mass murder and genocide but did nothing to put an end to it. The Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls the Jewish nation a ‘cancerous tumor’ and suggests its ‘eradication’. Guess what – Twitter staff didn’t ban him from the platform.
“Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken.” – Khamenei wrote in 2018. The tweet is still present at the platform. “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible it will happen.”
Twitter left the Ayatollah’s account intact despite the tweet gaining much traction.
There are more examples like this that remained unsolved on the platform. Not only that nobody solved them, but knowing that they exist, Twitter staff completely ignored them. The Ethiopian and the Indian Prime Ministers are two more of these cases.
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICAN FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. You will not disrespect or treat them unfairly in any way, shape, or form!!!” – This is the tweet that got Donald Trump in trouble with the Twitter staff. Please read it carefully once more to see if this is worse than the two examples I’ve given above. Could someone explain how this is a call for violence, but ‘removing Israel from Asia’ isn’t?
In the leaked emails, we could read how Vijaya Gadde the head of legal policy and trust at Twitter reacted to Trump’s tweet.
“The biggest question is whether a tweet like the one this morning from Trump, which isn’t a rule violation on its face, is being used as coded incitement to further violence.” – Vijaya Gadde wrote after Trump’s tweet. “If you have any context or insight we should consider, I’m all ears. For example, the use of the term ‘American Patriots’. Or ‘They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way’.”
Vijaya Gadde continues to try and negotiate with her subordinate that a survey about the matter if this is incitement to further violence, is unnecessary. According to her, they should make a decision then and there without consulting anyone.
However, the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey interfered as soon as he found out about the conversation. The leaked emails show that he held a meeting where staff spoke about their stance on the Trump matter. Following the meeting, they made the decision to ban Donald Trump.
Twitter banned Donald Trump as a result of consecutive ‘dangerous tweets’. Not just this only one. Whether Twitter should have banned him or not remains an open question. A question that someone should discuss most probably in a courtroom. However, the fact that the Twitter staffers decide on bans as a joke, complicates the matter to the next level. The platform seemed like a totalitarian regime, where a close circle of people decided what could and couldn’t be tolerated.
Matt Taibbi revealed more shocking emails from the Twitter staffers. At one point, they discussed if they should ‘just ban’ the former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee over a joke. All this because they personally didn’t like the joke.
The more emails and private conversations leak, the more we see the unjust way Twitter has been running. Twitter users call for responsibility of the people involved in these ‘plots’.