That’s worthy of discussion. I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Just saying the issue isn’t as one-sided as many might like to believe it is.
Yet they didn’t suspend him for the specific example provided.
Also, I don’t think it’s so clear that threatening a defensive act could be called “inciting violence”.
If a group of criminals were parading through a neighborhood performing home invasions, I do not think it’d cross the line to warn them off with a public declaration of “our house has guns and we will protect ourselves”.
A fair enough opinion, and a worthy discussion. But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions, rather than silencing Trump.
Edit: I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Whether their decision was wise or not certainly needs to be discussed. I’m just pointing out that “silencing the lunatic in the White House” isn’t the only potential explanation for their suspension of Trump’s account.
I agree that Trump’s banning from Twitter is concerning, and that he did not incite violence. But that isn’t the underlying issue behind the suspension.
The problem is that a small but very eager group of fanatics have latched on to Trump’s Twitter postings as an excuse to react in violent, deluded ways. It no longer mattered what Trump said, the fanatics would twist its meaning and use it as an excuse for mayhem. (The media clearly have some culpability in this, as they intentionally put out outrageous interpretations in order to whip up controversy. But that’s another issue.)
And so, Twitter felt allowing the situation to continue would not be responsible. They weren’t attempting to silence Trump, but rather to deprive the delusional maniacs of fodder.
People also tend to give trucks a wider berth, or at least notice you more and respond more readily to your actions.
I’ve only ever owned small cars, and in the handful of times I’ve needed to drive a U-haul truck or similar the trip started with trepidation. But I quickly discovered that other drivers have a strong tendency (self-interested, of course) to help big trucks out.
The only reason they’re finally banning him is because his worth runs out in 12 days.
Dumping him now allows Twitter to virtue signal and avoid looking like an enabler of literal violence, all while giving up virtually nothing in return.
Kind of like how his cabinet members are now resigning. No big loss for them, as they’ll be out of a job shortly anyway. Might as well “stand up to him” while they still have the opportunity to reap political kudos.
The idea was for the shelf scanning robots to send messages when they found a low stock item or a mess, and then a human could just load up a cart with stock from the back room and head directly to the problem areas.
This would be in contrast to having people regularly walk every aisle and examine everything personally, going back and forth to get stock repeatedly. Much time was wasted.
As a former Walmart employee I was actually excited to see these proposed.
But now with so many people walking the aisles collecting items for pickup, I guess they’re just going to have them send “problem detected” messages instead of the robots. Which is fine I guess. Shopping there has become an even greater hassle with all the employees and their pickup carts, but that’s a whole other issue.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an intentional back door (...) that Grindr was required to create and let foreign authorities know about in exchange for being allowed to market the app in their country.
I can understand that concern. But it leaves price changes in the future open (including perhaps making it free at some point) without having to delete and upload an edited video.