The zealots on Twitter’s bloated payroll (most of whom had graduated from America’s hard-left colleges), however, were having none of that. They were adamant that Trump had violated the policy against incitement. As one employee stated in the company’s Slack channel, it was “pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules.” In other words, these proud products of America’s academic system firmly believed that they had to violate their own rules in order to prevent Trump from continuing
not to violate their rules.
Weiss has chapter and verse showing the Maoist employees demanding that Trump be kicked off America’s premier political platform, even as those given the task of analyzing his tweets could not twist them into anything approaching conduct that violated Twitter’s rules. Weiss, to her credit, makes the point that, even as Twitter was twisting itself into intellectually corrupt pretzels to silence an American president, it was an open platform for world leaders engaged in genuine incitement.
Those who remained on the platform were Iran’s Ayatollah demanding Israel’s annihilation, a Malayan Prime Minister calling for Muslims to “kill millions of French people,” the Nigerian leader inciting violence against pro-Biafra groups, the Ethiopian Prime Minister calling on citizens to take up arms against a region within Ethiopia, and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s threat to imprison Twitter employees for restoring accounts he disliked. Twitter deleted their inciting tweets but did not deplatform them.
And of course, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Trump-hating top attorney, tried to twist Trump’s word into “coded incitement to further violence.” In other words, if Trump says it, it must be an incitement to violence because his 75,000,000 supporters are all waiting to rise up. This mindset appears in a Slack conversation referring to an idea from the “scaled enforcement team”: “SCALE is asking if we would consider Trump’s Tweet for GOV. If we consider ‘American Patriots’ to refer to the rioters, they have a point.”