Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account:
US President Donald Trump has been permanently suspended from Twitter "due to the risk of further incitement of violence", the company says.
Twitter said the decision was made "after close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them".
Mr Trump had earlier been locked out of his account for 12 hours.
Twitter then said that it would ban Mr Trump "permanently" if he breached the platform's rules again.
Reacting to the permanent ban, Trump 2020 campaign adviser Jason Miller tweeted: "Disgusting... if you don't think they're coming for you next, you're wrong."
It comes after Mr Trump tweeted several messages on Wednesday, calling the people who stormed the US Capitol "patriots".
Hundreds of his supporters entered the Capitol building as the US Congress attempted to certify Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election. The ensuing violence led to the deaths of four civilians and a police officer.
The siege took place just hours after Trump addressed supporters and told them: "We will never give up; we will never concede."
[...] On Thursday, Facebook said it had suspended Mr Trump "indefinitely". The popular gaming platform Twitch also placed an indefinite ban on the outgoing president's channel, which he has used for rally broadcasts. So has Snapchat.
Two online Trump memorabilia stores were closed this week by e-commerce company Shopify. On Friday, Reddit banned its "donaldtrump" forum for the president's supporters.
[...] The big question now is, can Trumpism survive without the backing of mainstream media? Or will it simply slip into the shadows of the internet?
(Emphasis retained from original.)
Also at Ars Technica, CNET
Full Twitter explanation at: blog.twitter.com
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @02:11AM (1 child)
"Many of the protections society provides to ensure liberty are authoritarian and communal." -- you mean like laws? Well, yeah, the concept of a legal framework for a society is communal, but the pro-individualist position on this that isn't actually out-and-out anarchism is not to have no laws, but to restrict what laws can be passed. It's analogous to unconscionable terms in a contract. However, none of that contradicts the idea of pro-individualism being liberal; it contradicts the idea of letting individuals interfere with each other.
So take another swing at explaining why you don't think that liberality correlates with a smaller ruleset, because this one was a whiff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 10 2021, @04:21AM
So you're a moron? Def a u prob.