Min menu


Elon Musk proves Trump's Twitter ban was bad, and I don't see clear incitement in DJT tweet


Elon Musk

proves that Trump's Twitter ban was worse than you thought:

I think we're going to have a hard time saying this incitement

nor do I see a clear or encrypted incitement in a DJT tweet.

Elon Musk just released "Part V of Twitter Files, Removing Trump from Twitter" and proved to be much worse than anyone thought.

Most believe that Twitter has a system to make such a historic decision and that Trump would have had to flout the rules clearly to get the boot.

According to Twitter staff, Trump did not go outside the rules.

and the leadership was forced to misrepresent the rules to conclude what Trump might talk about to ban him. What a scandal. Journalist Barry Weiss reported Part 5. She said:

On the morning of January 8

President Donald Trump tweeted twice

after remaining one strike before he risked being permanently suspended from Twitter.

6:46 am:

The 75.000,000 Patriots of Great Americans who voted for me

America First


will have a tremendous voice for a long time in the future.

They will not be disdained or treated unfairly in any way, form or form!!!. To everyone who requested it, I won't be attending the inauguration on January 20. 7:44 a.m.

For years

Internal and external pressure on Twitter to

  • ban Trump on the grounds that banning a world leader from the podium
  • or removing his controversial tweets would hide
  • People should be able to see and discuss vital facts.

Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to inform them and engage their leaders directly," the company wrote in 2019. To "protect the public's right to listen to and hold their leaders accountable," was Twitter's mission.

But after 6 January

as mtaibbi and shellenbergermd cultivated

pressure increased, both on and off Twitter, to ban Trump.

There were defectors inside Twitter.

One employee said on January 7:

  1. Maybe because I'm from China
  2. I understand deeply how censorship
  3. can destroy the public conversation.

But such voices appear to have represented a distinct minority within the company. Via Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump had not been blocked earlier.

After 6 January, Twitter employees regulated the employer's demand to ban Trump. One Twitter

employee said:

There's a lot of calling for employees happening.

We have to do the right thing and block this account, one employee said.

Another said:

Obviously he will try to crack the needle of incitement without violating the rules.

Early in the afternoon of January 8

  • The Washington Post published an open letter that was
  • CEO Jack Dorsey calling for Trump's ban.

We must examine Twitter collusion in

what President-elect Biden rightly called rebellion.


Twitter employees tasked with evaluating the tweets quickly concluded that Trump * did not * violate Twitter's policies. One staff member wrote: "I think we'll find it hard to say this is an incitement."


  • he says it was the American Patriots who voted for him
  • not the terrorists (we could call them that, right?) From Wednesday.
  • Another staff member agreed: You don't see the angle of incitement here.

I also don't see a clear

or encrypted incitement in the DJT tweet

  • wrote Anika Navaroli, who is responsible for Twitter policy.
  • "I will respond on the election channel and say that
  • our team assessed and found that no conquests
  • or violations - were found on the DJT team."

For your information, Safety has examined the aforementioned DJT tweet and found that there is not currently a violation of our policies.


Twitter's safety team determined that Trump's tweet at 7:44 a.m. ET was also not violated. There is no doubt about it: "It is obvious that there is no soundbite. I It's just to say he won't attend the inauguration.

But Twitter

executives banned Trump

  1. although key employees said Trump
  2. did not incite violence
  3. not even in a "coded" way.

After Twitter staff determined that Trump's tweets were false in less than 90 minutes

did not violate Twitter policy

Vijaya Jadi - head of legal affairs

policy and Twitter trust - questioned whether, in fact, they could be" encrypted incitement to further violence. "

The biggest question is whether a tweet like the one Trump sent this morning, which is not a violation of the rule on its face, is being used to encrypt further violence," Gaddy said.

A few minutes later

Twitter staff on the Expanded Enforcement Team indicate that

Trump's tweet might have gone against Twitter's rules for

glorifying violence

f you interpret the phrase" American Patriots "to refer to troublemakers.

Things are escalating from there.

"The members of this group came" to present him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to the Christchurch or Hitler shooter, and on that basis and on his total tweets, he must be eliminated. "

Two hours later

  • Twitter executives hosted a 30-minute meeting of all staff.
  • Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gaddy answer staff questions about
  • why Trump has not yet been banned.
  • But they make some staff more angry.

"Many adventurers [Twitter employees] quoted the banality of evil indicating that people who implement our policies resemble the Nazis who follow orders," Joel Roth told a colleague.

Dorsey asked for simpler language to explain Trump's comment. Ruth wrote, God helped us [this] makes me think he wants to share it publicly.

One hour later

Twitter announced Trump's permanent comment

due to the potential for further escalation of violence.

But Twitter Chief Operating Officer Barag Agrawal

who will later succeed Dorsey as chief executive

told security chief Mudge Zatko:

I think a few of us should be looking at the ripple effects "of Trump's ban. Agrawal added: "The central oversight of IMO content is now at breaking point."