They literally interpreted clear threats of violence as clear threats of violence.
Even allegedly clear threats of violence are subject to interpretation. For instance, when Madonna said she often thought of blowing up the White House, or Maxine Waters said to harass Trump supporter and tell them they're not wanted in polite society.
Naturally we all agree if there's a way to determine when threats are more than hyperbolic we'd hope something could be looked into, or done. But is it really the responsibility of a content provider like Twitter or Parler to monitor and interpret all that content to determine motive and intent. I'd say that the FBI is free to go through all of Twitter's rants, and Parler's rants, and do some research where they see fit.
But for Jack Dorsey to flag right wing violence and or hyperbole and treat left-wing violence as merely hyperbolic, as though he's an incarnate polygraph, the FBI, and the DOJ, rolled into one pathetic looking dude . . . that's just too much in my opinion.
We have the perfect example of bias at work when a CNN reporter is standing in front of what looks like a war-zone, replete with flames and smoke rising to the heavens, while the chyron at the bottom of the page, and the reporter himself calls the scene a mostly peaceful gathering.
Who could doubt Jack Dorsey considered that CNN broadcast accurate reporting?
Death threats, active planning of illegal break ins, instructions that press were 'soft targets' as well as targeting specific individuals from teachers to members if congress. Amazon warned Parler for months prior to the Capitol sedition that they were not meeting the standards of their contract. Parler has no excuse.
Neither Google, nor Twitter, have the manpower and or the objectivity either to examine, or interpret, everything that goes through their portal for actual rather than hyperbolic violence. When the shoe was on the other foot, Trump becoming President, you could observe fits of violence a plenty and nothing was said or done. Some of the hyperbole came from Dorsey's own account, And yet they demand that a conservative outlet do what they don't do. They demand that conservative outlets interpret content as though they're liberal-minded peyote-smoking snow-flakes or else.
Some might observe it to be somewhat factual to say liberals interpret conservative hyperbole as actual violence while they interpret actual violence on the part of a liberal as hyperbolic. For instance I don't think Maxine Waters was being hyperbolic when she said to run conservatives out of town; get in their faces and make them uncomfortable, and yet not a word was said about that inciting violence. Not a word was said when Pelosi tore up the State of the Union speech on national television.
My point isn't a tit for tat. My point is that biased interpretations occur in both case such that neither case should be thought of as objective and fair-minded.
John
