Talk:Twitter permanently bans US President Trump from platform

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Similarities to sources[edit]

For perspective, here's what I turned up on my preliminary check for similarities to sources. For the preliminary check I use hints from an automated program, which however is limited by its inability to determine meaning; the tool detects syntactically matching passages, and a human reviewer must then determine whether the meaningful context indicates a similarity is less, or more, significant that it might appear — a smallish verbatim similarity might be accidental if the contexts are unrelated, or might be part of a larger similarity that isn't verbatim (below, the orange "that" is a difference between synthesis and source). I'm also wary that when a bunch of similarities turn up on the prelim check, there are likely to be more similarities a human reviewer may find later in a review, so one should treat the prelim check as a likely underestimate of that sort of problem. --Pi zero (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


On Friday, Twitter permanently suspended President Trump from using their platform. According to the social media giant, the reason for this ban is "the risk of further incitement of violence". This goes against the usual behavior (there’s definitely a better word to use here) of Twitter, that usually doesn’t suspend world leaders. This ban was criticized by many, claiming that Twitter is "the enemy of free speech".

Not long after the ban was announced, Trump posted a tweet in his official account (@POTUS which stands for President of the United States) which criticizes Twitter for banning free speech. It also goes on and say: "Twitter employees have coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me - and YOU, the 75,000,000 great patriots who voted for me". The tweet, which was deleted minutes after it was posted also said that Trump was negotiating with other sites and was also looking at the possibility of opening a new platform.

Kate Ruane, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned Twitters decision to ban President Trump. He told that he doesn’t agree with Trump's tweets and understand twitter's wish to permanently ban him, but he also says: "it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions". He also told that many activists will be affected by twitters decision especially since they might not always have alternative ways to share their opinions.

Lindsey Graham, an American Senator from South Carolina posted a tweet saying: "Twitter may ban me for this but I willingly accept that fate: Your decision to permanently ban President Trump is a serious mistake. The Ayatollah can tweet, but Trump can’t. Says a lot about the people who run Twitter." He also told in a separate tweet that he is determined to repeal Section 230 which many Conservatives claim offers protection to Big Tech companies that participate in mass censorship.

Section 230 is a law passed in 1996 that shields Big Tech companies from being liable for what individual users post on their platforms. It says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This law has several exceptions, for example in 2018, Congress made it possible to sue internet platforms for knowingly supporting sex trafficking.

Republicans and Democrats agree that Big Tech companies have gained too much power and that they must be regulated. Many Democrats think that Congress should require Big Tech Companies to delete so called "hate speech and extremism, election interference and falsehoods". However, many Republicans, including President Trump, blame Facebook, Google, and Twitter for censoring free speech, and want to hold them accountable for how they moderate content.


  • CBS News
  • Washington Post
  • USA Today
@Pi zero:, I have passed through your list and changed the wording. -ElfSnail123 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4600327 [Not ready][edit]

@Pi zero:, thanks for the review! About Breitbart News, I only used it in one paragraph to tell what this specific guy tells about this topic, and not to describe the ban itself. About who was suspended it’s his personal account and he posted this tweet using his official one because his personal one was suspended. About Section 230, I just checked and it’s section 230 of the communication defense act. I will add it right away. -ElfSnail123 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that someone fixed this problem about Section 230. And btw, about Breitbart I only used it in the paragraph where you told I copied text from Washington Post.😅 -ElfSnail123 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Will this article get reviewed?[edit]

I addressed the concerns written in the previous review, why isn’t this article getting reviewed? If the reason is that reviewing requires concentration and you plan to review it in the future, I apologise. -ElfSnail123 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElfSnail123: There are two ways I could handle this. It is stale, honestly, and I could cursorily not-ready it, but that wouldn't be helpful to you so I don't want to do it. And the other thing to do is to take the time to check the other things about it, and provide you with valuable feedback; if this were the only thing on the queue, that's what I'd have done, first thing this morning. However, we now have two other synthesis articles clamoring for attention (as well as two big viable interview articles, both of which really need to move although freshness is a different thing for original reporting). On top of, yes, the problem of budgeting time and providing quality time for review (which I've long considered the single most important challenge to address to make Wikinews work better). --Pi zero (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks anyway. -ElfSnail123 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4601783 [Not ready][edit]