Topic: Trump regrets not banning twitter as he hails Nigerian government for doing so (Read 716 times)

This is not a case of tweeter going around there system to check on posts to bring down but it depends on the users who make report on the post or posts. The posts have to be reported and not just a report but a series of report for tweeter to move to check the post. Tweeter has it rules and regulations for guide on people to post and if violated via report, then the rules will be applied. Also every other platforms including our noble forum (bitcointalk.org) has a button or a place where report is made poyor activated by clicking on it. For the forum here, this is an example

As about the Nigerian President post, it was reported severally by people who didn't like the idea in the post and tweeter has to do a check on the post and the rules has to be considered. Likewise every other media platforms, they have rules and regulations as guide to users.

If they want to ban Trump, then fine. They can ban him. But then the same yardstick must be applied to others. I have seen a lot of politicians in the Middle East and Asia making tweets, that can be interpreted as direct calls to genocide. But Twitter never bans them (as posted earlier, the tweet from Mahathir Mohammed is the perfect example). Now the Nigerian president got banned using the same excuse. My issue here is not that Trump or Buhari is banned by Twitter. My issue is that the same rule is not applied when Mahathir Mohammed makes a tweet supporting genocide.

Your statement is self-contradictory. It is Twitter which is acting against the freedom of speech by banning and flagging the accounts they don't like. The action from Nigerian government was warranted by the ban on the Twitter account of the president. You are arguing in favor of an entity, which has shown scant regard for freedom of speech. In the end, social media platforms need to obey the rules of the land in which they are operating. If they want to ban or flag someone, then it should be done as per the prevailing laws, and not as per their preference.

I sort of agree with you. I just think it is not "that" extreme, there are rights and wrongs in this world after all, but I do agree with you that nobody should support one side fully 100% without ever disagreeing on any point. I also think that "left" and "right" are way too broad of a term these days, like for example Biden is a big time right wing person to me, maaaaybe during this presidency he "may" have shown some left, but he declined to do even that, he literally won 2 seats on georgia by promising 2k dollar stimulus and gave 1.4k as soon as he became a president, to me that is not leftist AT ALL, or backed down on student debt cancellation or bombed another nation right away, I can go on but none of the things he promised which was a leftist thing end up happening.

Yet when you ask a republican he is a big time commie somehow. So, we can't just say everyone is wrong, so I disagree on that part, but I can say you should find something in everything, and disagree a bit with everything, nobody should %100 support a political ideology fully.

I think it's high time he realize that he is becoming unnoticed as a politician and a past president to one of the world leading country's.
Nigeria on the other hand is playing politics and hurting people with freedom of speech. I don't see a tangible reason why the presidency would want to ban a micro blogging platform because they deleted his messages. The rules were there when he registered on the platform, hence it must be duly followed regardless of his position b or sovereignty.

There is no Republican/Democrat divide in supporting most corrupt dictators. The most powerful dictator in the world right now is Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and he enjoys unlimited support from the Democrats. And Twitter never takes any action against any of the dictators from the middle east region, because a large fraction of the company ownership is in the hands of Arabs.

Now coming to the argument that Twitter is a private business and they can ban anyone who they don't like. If they argue like this, then they have to take responsibility for all the tweets made on their platform. That is not the case and Twitter claims that it is just an intermediary. And the issue here is that, an intermediary can't ban people who they don't like.

Mr Trump is here again with his comments on country he had bullied many things without numbers, placing them on visa ban with his trivial reasons of protecting the country interest. Now he is here again congratulating the President of Nigeria for banning Twitter, now regretting of doing the same when he knows that he wouldn't be able to achieve such.

I believe not all country can tolerate democracy easily cause I see no reason why Twitter would have to ban the tweet of the leader of a country claiming that it's contrary to their rules of term. Twitter has bitten the tail of a lion and now, they are facing the consequences. We can not compare Africa with European countries that are more civilized with laws guiding and each and every steps of a lead without compromising the power that is given to them. Like we'll know that Africa will always be Africa.

While I am not sure that I agree with the banning of Donald Trump by both facebook and twitter, I will say that people should stop bitching about it who dont like it for the simple fact that these are private businesses that can do whatever they want and if you don't like it, then you don't have to be apart of the platform.  I do find it hilarious that Trump said something about this, being that Nigeria already has massive issues when it comes to freedom and equality.  Of course he doesn't mention any of that ( though Trump has been famous for lauding corrupt dictators/presidents).

Not only Trump, but most of the American politicians are dependent on social media platforms now (especially Twitter, Facebook and Instagram). Trump used his twitter account very efficiently during most of his term. But then, weeks before the election date, Twitter started flagging his posts as "manipulated media". This disrupted his campaign plans and many of his supporters believe that this cost them swing states such as Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia. Also, both the mainstream media and the social media suppressed the news about Hunter Biden, which would have otherwise done great harm to Joe Biden's campaign.

anyone that say the left lies and the right tells the truth is a gaslighter.

btw anyone that says the right lies and the left tells the truth is a gaslighter.

If you side with the left you are a simple minded loser

and if you side with the right you are a simple minded loser.

the entire concept of liberals vs conservatives is a con designed to take your money.

Right wing people will always play the victim because that is the base of the right wing propaganda in the past 2000+ years, it will never change. It is the mexicans that steal our job!! (while the capitalist right win business owner hires the Mexican, Mexican is not stealing it), it is the "they are teaching our children lies!!" while science (literally proven data backed science) is the subject, it is the "they are stealing our elections!!!!" while literally every right wing state is making it much much much harder to vote.

Basically without right wing people claiming these huge companies are leftist, what are they left with? They would have to accept that media and big companies are all in their favor and yet they still do not hold congress and senate and presidency basically no branch with all that money and power grab they are doing. Have you ever seen a democrat state making it harder for republicans to vote? Yet republicans are making it harder for democrats to vote in every state they run yet they still lose.

I think you like that idea because of your username

Pharma is a business, one of the most huge business. There are a lot of medicines for depression, pain management, for sleep, to calm down, etc and somehow, all of them are mentally and/or physically addictive. There are non-addictive alternatives but they are always under research and not approved. Without addiction, pharma companies wouldn't be able to sell as much products as they sell right now.
So, why I said that... Pharma companies prefer to create a new one and sell it in high price in order to gain more profit.
Btw as far as I know, medics can prescribe any medicine off-label for various reasons. And there are a lot of doctors that always treat their patients without following the protocol.
I know a lot of doctors who were giving away antibiotics to their patients while it was prohibited according to their protocol and as most of them claim (that I know), the protocol was shit and if they followed it, a lot more people would die with covid.

Zuckerberg's political donations are a much more convincing indication of what his political beliefs are than shutting down a bunch of malicious groups that are breaking the Facebook TOS and spreading vaccine and election misinformation.  Any reasonable person would expect malicious groups formed to purposefully misinform to be banned.  But you have no answer to the fact that Zuckerberg gives more money to republicans than democrats, and there's no possible way to spin that as an ultra-leftist.  You can't reason with people who want to believe in the delusion.

Trump has a point. I have been saying the same thing too. He should have banned Twitter and jailed Jack Dorsey for acting against the will of the U.S. people but he couldn't even make Pence to follow his orders so it is fair to say he chickened out.

At least Nigeria has the balls to ban that shit hole.

The beauty of socialism is that a lot of people support it, as long as it doesn't affect them. Bezos support higher taxes for the middle class and other leftist initiatives, but when it comes to his own business he would like to keep socialism at an arms distance. The same can be said about taxation as well. Bezos support high taxes, but using various loopholes, both him and his company (Amazon) have paid tax at a rate which is much lower than the others. Zuckerberg's political leanings are very clear, and you just need to take the list of group and individual pages banned by Facebook before the POTUS elections of 2020.

Nothing announces you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about like trying to claim Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are ultra-leftist, lmao.  I mean, Zuckerberg is such an obvious leftist, Facebook's political action committeehas given more money to republicans than democrats in every election cycle since 2012. What a classic ultra-leftist move to give more money to the party that is the exact opposite of what you supposedly believe in!  And who can forget Bezos' ultra-leftist power move of seeking to minimize union efforts at all costs at Amazon?

You take the clown makeup off before posting your deranged conspiracy nonsense, or nah?

Whenever some company gets almost complete monopoly in any sector, it starts to behave arrogantly and the case with Twitter is no different from the case with other corporates such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Tesla. The Nigerian government is encouraging users to register for Koo, but looking at the number of users, I am sure that this app can never compete with Twitter. Koo is an Indian app, that was founded just one year ago. So I would say that it is too early to judge them. But from what I have seen so far, Koo is miles behind Twitter.

Sums it up pretty well, twitter acts as a publisher when they begin to censor certain tweets that don't even conform to their own rules. If you even remotely suggest that sex biology exists, and that men and women cannot transition to the other sex, you'll be removed from the platform, meanwhile death threats against police or anyone right wing are completely fine. I'm inclined to say screw the platform and move somewhere else, but there isn't a solid alternative.

If we are going to follow that logic then twitter also has to follow the laws and regulations of each country and if they do not then be subject to a ban, which is by the way exactly what happened, twitter and other social media platforms are playing a dangerous game, yes they are powerful but they are centralized entities, the only way to survive if you are going against the most powerful centralized entities of the world is to be decentralized, and they are not so I will not be surprised if in the future social media platforms receive incredibly heavy regulations or are outright banned and replaced by other social media platforms.

Why exactly? Why can't they "decide" who should win? First of all they do not decide, they just let people write and do not let some of them write, that is all they do and nothing more which is totally under their own rules because it is a company and they can allow one person to write and the other not to write just with the basis of "I do not want to" and they can do it, they do not need any more reason than that, just if they dislike a guy just ban him that's it. Why? Because they are a company and they can just decline to offer someone their services, just like how you can decline to work with someone, simple as that, any shop owner in all of USA could decline to give you a product, it is allowed.

About the political stuff, we have fox news constantly pumping lies about politics EVERY HOUR, literally saying batshit crazy lies and when they were sued they literally defended themselves with "we are not news channel, we are entertainment, nobody sane would believe we are a news channel", so they literally act as news channels but claim they are not in order to be able to tell lies, according to Fox News, their "news" is literally like SNL news, a stand up to make people laugh, that's their defense.

If republicans can use fox news that way without any crimes broken, I am sorry but I hope twitter bans EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, that's how this game should be played, either make it all fair, or screw them all.

For all the flag waving and claims about America being the land of the free, it sure seems like the vast majority of Republicans were down for supporting the most self interested ex-president of America that the world has ever seen. It is comical how many people thought a "businessman" would be able to shake up the politics in the USA. They were right to a degree, he was far worse than any previous politician at showing how weak the American version of democracy can actually be. His finale in a four year reign of disgrace was allowing one of the most prestigious and supposedly sacred buildings in America, meant to be the bedrock of everything it stands for - be overrun by a bunch of hopped up, backwards and brainless terrorists.

It is not surprising that Trump welcomes Nigeria for blocking Twitter, since Twitter at one time locked Trump's account, thereby limiting his right to express his opinion. In simple words, there was an encroachment on freedom of speech. Well, since Twitter allows itself this, then probably this is the right reaction of countries like Nigeria to block Twitter. In general, it is very bad that social networks, taking advantage of their advantage, are breaking the law. It also shows that there is a struggle in the world between digital platforms and the old system.

Hahaa. This is so funny. After Donald Trump's account has been banned, it's not surprising to see him thinking like this. By the way, China also is one of the countries that banned Twitter. But it did it for a different purpose. China made their own version of Twitter to feel safer. It didn't only ban Twitter. It banned some other well-known social media platforms also.

Isn't banning the platform a form of trying to remove the freedom of speech of the people, of course the platform will allow everyone to post about political stuff because they are trying to be inclusive, the real problem is on the individual level, don't participate if you feel like you are offended. Also, that's only your claim that they are above the law, remember that even though their platform is public, Twitter is still a private company and they have control over you in their platform, they agreed to terms and conditions right?

tweeter has its own rules and they could not make an exeption even if you are a president .
i too dont like the action made by the nigerien government because other people are going to get affected .
so many nigerian people uses twitter for thier business and also for crypto activities like doing bounties or airdrops but how can they do it now .

Or maybe it was a move by trump to get votes of black peoples in US

The US is a different country from Nigeria, banned Twitter there is useless
but banning a site right now is really really stupid because with a VPN or create a custom DNS it will all open

It's really clear that the Nigerian government is a fool and countries like that are usually liked by stupid people like Trump

If the government suspects that a social media platform is interfering in the politics, then it has all the right to ban the platform. Twitter yesterday picked up a fresh fight with the Indian government, by temporarily suspending the account of Ravi Shankar Prasad (Minister of Information Technology). This is very significant, because by suspending the account of the IT minister, Twitter is trying to say that they are above the Indian laws. Also it is interesting to note that Twitter went after someone in the government who is regarded as toothless and weak, rather than going after the heavyweights such as Amit Shah or Yogi Adityanath.

Even if he did ban Twitter back then we wouldn't be certain if the present president of USA will revert those laws, as he did to some of Trump's laws.

Coming to the Nigerian government, it's natural in my eyes that when you ban the representative of some country on a big platform then you're insulting the whole nation, and most likely the platform is going to be banned.

Twitter might have learned a lesson here doesn't matter if it's a small one but they did.

Wouldn't there be a process before something like banning a platform be done completely in a democratic country. Plus, he is just bitter that he got banned from the platform because of his obnoxious behavior and toxic following.

Well, for your information it wasn’t only Twitter that deleted the Nigeria president’s posts, Facebook also did the same thing. And as for those that are trying to put some of the blames on Twitter, I think you all should know this; Twitter might be a social media platform, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have rules and regulations, and when you go against those rules and regulations that the platform has set, then they have the right to take action against you.

I have seen someone make abusive comments on Facebook and Facebook immediately deleted his comments and also suspended his account. So it’s not like the Nigerian president is the first that this was done. The tweet he made was totally wrong, so he deserved what he got and even more than that. So if I am going to be taking any sides here, then I’m with Twitter on this. Being privileged doesn’t mean you should oppress others. It’s as simple as that.

‘Live by the sword die by the sword’ I find it interesting those companies actually believe they are above governments, it was just a matter of time until one got upset enough to play their game, now do I like the fact the Nigerian government banned Twitter? Not really since I am in favor of freedom of speech, however as I said before I do not agree with Twitter banning the Nigerian president either and now they have to pay the consequences of what they did.

It was Twitter, which started the ban game first. They banned the account of the Nigerian president. So you can't claim that Twitter is really a torch bearer for freedom of speech. One reason why it attracted a disproportionate response from the Nigerian government was due to the fact that Twitter is already known to use their platform for political intervention. Obviously the Nigerian government don't want a repeat of what happened during the 2020 presidential elections in the United States. If Twitter take an unbiased stand, then they will have a high ground in this dispute. But that is not the case here.

It is a joke that Twitter doesn't interfere in the politics. Twitter CEO and the other important board members have clear political views, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that their actions were driven by their political ideology. Twitter, Facebook and Google all have actively interfered in politics using their monopoly in the market. Intermediaries doesn't differentiate between the users. But Twitter has selectively banned and flagged users according to their ideology and this means that they are not an intermediary.

Oh! I get the point your trying to propagate and its so true. Shouod q social media take a side to the story, its wrong bit then, it depends highly on the story that is being promoted. Hate speech and all isn't very much a thing that should be allowed to thrive as it could lead to insecurity in the societies considering how fast these Internet mediated news do spread. Coupled with the fact that, there are always those as to which, there minds are fetile, just waiting on this sort of news to be planted in them.

Though, there is no reason for which, a nation should shot down a means to information, be it false or not. The information or profile or the user should be the one to be deleted and not the means itself. Tweeter has done more good than harm. Government should consider these things.

All the social media platforms are intermediary and the user is responsible for the contents they put out and the only times twitter flags someone if they are propagating fake news and promoting hate speech and if that is their policy then what is that a government can do about it. Twitter as a company is not interfering in politics as far as i know but it is a mass media and the users are using it as a tool to spread their political views.

You expressed my issue with this platform better than I could do so myself, I am not against platforms that allow you to express what you want and share it to the world, if I was against that then I will have to be against the whole Internet and technologies like the telephone, but the platform needs to be fair to anyone, and the moment the intermediary chooses a side regardless of which side that is then that is a problem as they can easily influence people that way.

Even though twitter shouldn't have taken side with whatever shit the Nigerian government where doing but I still believe banning twitter was an extreme action taken by the Nigerian government,  I mean why do the citizens have to pay for the crimes of government! Trump didn't do it because he knows what's right from wrong, between the USA wouldn't have taken it calmly either,  that would have further increase the dislike many citizens already feel about him and his government.  There is nothing commendable about what the Nigerian government did.

Twitter claims to be an intermediary, and it says that the users are responsible for their tweets. That is OK. But if they show bias in flagging the tweets and banning the users, then they can no longer claim to be an intermediary. And this is what the Indian law ministry said last week when they removed the legal protection of Twitter. A handful of the billionaires and the corporations controlled by them (Twitter, Google, Facebook.etc) want to decide who should rule the world. They are actively interfering with the politics, not just in the United States, but also in the other countries.

I do not use social media but that does not mean that I do not understand its impact, as you say young people are leaving behind the old ways to get information and instead are relying on social media, this is not wrong by itself, however when the owners of this platform consciously decides to favor one ideology over the other then this is a problem, now I am not a Trump supporter and I will have the same problem with social media if for example they banned Obama so this is not an issue of political identity but one of freedom of speech.

The younger generation no longer watch cable news or read news papers. Among them, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter will be having a disproportional impact. If someone like Trump is unable to use the platform, then it puts him at a huge disadvantage when compared to his rivals. And this actually happened during the POTUS elections of 2020. Many of his tweets were flagged, and in the end the account got suspended. Social media really harmed Trump during his presidential re-run.

REAGEN is still a think in politics, think about how ancient that is, most of us weren't even alive back in those days, First president in my time was papa bush, then Clinton when I was a kid, then bush jr when it was a teenager and Obama during my college and afterwards, and most recently trump when I started to bald a bit and losing hair. So we only had such a few presidents in the past 30 years, it is normal that people are still news worthy, Obama still becomes news time to time when he says something, hell "who will the previous president personally nominate as his best candidate for next president" is still a thing, and that is really a big deal.

This is not a big news, it is just Trump and Twitter feud because it gets clicks and that's it, but I still think whenever an ex president does something it is a news because people read about it.

The social media and most of the mainstream media are under the control of a handful of ultra-leftist billionaires. And they decide what we should read and watch. I am talking about people like Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Jeff Bezos. The amount of radical leftist propaganda that is being dished out through these outlets is astounding. Two years back, in Netflix they had a movie named In the Shadow of the Moon. The subject was a mixed race woman doing time travel and killing those who have a conservative political view. Can you imagine this? A movie justifying murder, just because the victims were conservative. And given the current trend, this is not going to end here. Very soon the liberals will say that those who vote for Republican party should be murdered (we already have a thread in the Politics section). And then it will get worse. These people will say that anyone who is not a radical leftist doesn't have the right to live.

Are you talking about the blonde wig Trump that the majority of the world including me hates? Hilarious. He is an idiot who get elected thanks to a shit-ton of luck. Also, the term 'fairness' doesn't really mix well with Trump.

Spot on. Trump supporters are clearly trying to carry on his pathetic legacy by sharing this kind of news which is pointless in my opinion. They need to learn to move on.

I think Trump was being cheeky/sarcastic in his statement, just like he's always been with the press.  And why the mother-loving F is he still newsworthy?  He's not president anymore, thank the stars--just a blowhard has-been who couldn't get elected for a second term.

But that's unfortunate about Nigeria banning Twitter, as it's a slap in the face to freedom of expression.  Not that I particularly care for their platform, but I don't think they ought to be banned in any country unless they're doing something wrong, which I don't believe they are.  Hopefully that doesn't become a trend in Africa or elsewhere.

Kinda seemed that way, didn't it?  But if you think about it, a lot of big companies are following the liberal agenda.  Amazon's Prime Video has videos classified by race, if you can believe that.  It's like all the companies are catering to the "woke" crowd, and I find that disgusting.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook played a very crucial role during the presidential elections last year, along with Google. Twitter and Facebook banned a number of Republican activists for the silliest reasons and disrupted the fundraising of GOP by removing Republican affiliated pages. They were just behaving as another arm of the Democrat party. The best example is the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden. Both Twitter and Facebook deleted any link covering the Hunter Biden story, while allowing fake news against Trump.

They are not free, if you can be banned from the service then they are not free, and once again that is not my problem, my problem is that they sell themselves as one thing but they are in fact another, one closer example to this is the telephone network, how many crimes have been committed with the network? A great deal as criminals can coordinate their actions because of it and yet they are not banned as it is an impartial network and the justice system uses this to catch criminals, the fact they can ban people which are not criminals just because they disagree with them is the modern equivalent of book burning.

They are free as they just allowing their users to post whatever they want, banning them though once there's a need
coming from the society,

But all in all they are free of charges fro the actions of thier users, nothing else and nothing to worry as long as they
are not doing it by their own or claiming things that belongs to them.

It's still not fair for the side of Trump not to be heard by the public. he is a political figure so there has to be a way to spread a word about what he has to say without having to call for a press conference when the press is also against him.

if you feel sorry for NBA stars and Hollywood celebrities not able to say anything against China today then you should also feel the way Trump for shutting him down.

Trump is a coward! With all the atrocities going on in Nigeria and the wanton killings by herdsmen, the #endsars massacre of innocent protesters at Lekki Tollgate in Nigeria, he didn't see the need to make a comment or caution Mohammadu Buhari, the Nigerian president. The coward is now talking. Trump calls himself a democrat yet there's so little left to be desired of him in that perspective. A democrat who suppresses free speech is a hypocrite.

---

Twitter has a set of rules that governs its oppression and I don't think it will be right to allow anyone violate it and go unpunished. Trump's tweet was taken down because it violated Twitter's rule and so was Buhari's tweet. You don't dictate to a company what should be accepted by it because you're a president. Such is only condoned in Africa where politicians are worshipped as demi gods.

He had all the chance but couldn't do it because he was a capital coward.

Hydroxychloroquine is not effective against covid and was stopped being used by real doctors (not the sycophants trump surrounds himself with) because all indications are it does far more harm than good. Vaccines have proven effective, HCQ never did. Trying to spin a narrative about dumping ineffective HCQ in favor of medicines that actually do work into a conspiracy theory is not only factually wrong, it’s deranged.

Funny
Honestly you don't need to consult a psychologist to know what's going on in his mind.
"You banned my account! I will ban you from my whole country ( if I could)"
First I used to actually get angry about his behavior but I do believe that his mind is that of a teenager therefore these things don't even matter much now. He is no more a forceful influential person. He is just trying to grab attention. I do believe no matter what good did come out of banning Twitter in Nigeria, at the end of the day people should not be banned from using social platforms, it's more or so their rights. They can go about any probelm in a different direction for sure.
Why do people criticize North Korea ? People do not have any freedom at all !!!! Plus this seems like the first step to creating a space like that.

You did not notice that Donald Trump had a tendency to dictatorship? The only thing that prevented him from manifesting it was the American constitution that was upheld by the legislature as it refused to be bought over by Trump. Otherwise there is no difference between Trump and the leaders in Africa. Did you not see how he refused to accept victory which is the character of African politicians. Again, Trump knew that banning Twitter would further made his case against the media worse and an easy way to be hated more by Americans. That was why he never banned it.

I agree, all of those companies want the best of both worlds, they sell themselves as this impartial network that should not be blamed by what their users post as it is just a platform, but a real platform like for example the electric grid does not ban users even when they are doing something bad with the service they are providing, after all no one blames the electric company if someone commits a crime using their services, however they also want to censor what people say on their platforms making them a completely different business and they should be treated as such under the law, something that right now is not happening.

I am not entirely sure if Trump really cares about losing the election as much as he cares about being banned from twitter. Honestly twitter was a place where he could do whatever he wants and say whatever he wants and gets a ton of love from people, or even hate but he was always in the news and he was always getting attention and as a narcissistic person it was always known that he loves to get fans or haters but at least some attention.

Being president was a ton of work and he may not like that, dude had so much responsibility during his presidential years, I personally would love to be a president but I know that I would also would love to get rid of being president as soon as I became one, he probably feels the same way, like a weight is lifted off his back. However twitter was something else, he could do that while in the toilet, it wasn't work, he said whatever he wants and got love, so I think he might be more upset about twitter ban then presidential loss.

Read about this and what happened. The president was threatening some separatist groups in these of the country and then Twitter removed the tweet, and that led to the president getting angry and banning Twitter from the country. Although I wouldn’t really say that Twitter is right about the action they took, but I do understand that they have rules that are against such on their platform, although some people have argued that Twitter is fond of taking sides. And then as for the President of Nigeria, I think if you all are really following up with what has been happening in that country, you all are going to hate that man.

I guess that’s why a lot of people were happy when Twitter deleted that tweet, because almost everybody in that country hates the president and his corrupt cohorts.

The only thing I find intriguing about the content of this post if that Trump actually regrets anything of what he has done in his entire life. It is very obvious that Trump expected to have a degree of control on Twitter while he was president, which he did, but when it became obvious that he was not going to be re-elected, Twitter got rid of the dead presidential weight.

Twitter was weaponised by Trump to create a sectarian partisanship. Nigeria´s case different.

Twitter is the voice of people and it's there people can freely spread their words and even of some country ban twitter just like Nigerian and some other governments did, people still can use some vpn services and access this website like other people usually do. I believe even if they ban twitter another projects more stronger than it will grow. In the other hand, many people are earning money using twitter and blocking twitter can damage lots of people and businesses. So sad to see Nigeria doing such thing to people.

Typical left wing justification. Trump needs to be banned for not condemning the capitol storming. But tweets from people like Mahathir Mohammad are OK, even if they incite the followers to murder a certain ethnic group. Being run by a left-wing cabal, I don't expect anything better from Twitter as well. Also, they are partly owned by Arab billionaires. I would just say this - if Twitter can ban users as per their wish, then the governments around the world can also ban Twitter if they don't follow the local laws.

Personally, I don't agree that banning Twitter is tantamount to stifling freedom of speech. Whatever you want to tweet you can always speak somewhere else. It is not as if Twitter is the only way for people to have a voice. It is not the only public platform either. Neither is it the only avenue for voices to be heard.

As a matter of fact, Twitter itself is also doing the sifting of which tweet is allowed and which is not. So Twitter cannot be made a poster boy of freedom of speech.
 
Moreover, a sovereign country has the privilege to choose which site is allowed and which is not. At the end of the day, Twitter is but a private site owned by a private company. Any country is free to accept it or not.

Social networks should be strictly regulated and censored so that the news is not true and does not incorporate one-sided propaganda claims. Twitter violated laws that the Nigerian government banned such as racism and genocide.
As for Trump's statements, incumbent statements about democracy are common political ploys to carry out American propaganda plots. Trump's recent statement was angry about not being elected president. He also used the money to hire ads on social networking sites to win the presidential election.

I can't see and I can't picture how would a Twitter ban would end up with job losses and business folding.
If your job is that dependent on a social platform hosted in a different company or your entire business is linked that tight with a company that actually has terms and conditions against this then it's obvious you're doing something wrong.

I would understand youtube, as a youtube content creator but twitter? No, no way! The only ones that can say are affected at bounty hunters who spam links all day but damn if that's your only refuge as a money maker you should seriously reconsider your priorities in life and what you want to achieve. What happens if Twitter will result in the same KYC and would enforce all the rules against commercial tweets for real, not keep as lenient as they have to date?

As for Trump, I don't see why it would matter what he says, he is the ex-president, the ex stands for zero influence whatsoever.


Ok, ok, does anybody has a number on this?
Because to be honest I would call such claims as pure you know what, if a country's economy would be that dependent on some tweets then I don't want to know what a complete fb/instagram/youtube would do to you, send you back in the stone age?

It's an entirely funny situation in Nigeria, for a third world country still struggling to cope with basic amenities like electricity and good roads, banning Tweeter cause their president's tweet (which of course violated one of tweeters rules) was deleted is just unbelievable, and an indication that their government doesn't know where their problem really lies.

Nigeria is a country struggling economically, they are in a state of inflation and a high rate of unemployment, so many of it's citizens use Tweeter as their source of livelihood, and they promote/engage in one business or the other on the social platform, thus the government just basically cut off quite a lot of people's income, without providing anything reasonable for them to do. I'm personally not surprised with Donald Trump's comments, he made even worse statements when he was president, but even he couldn't go as far as banning Tweeter in the U.S.A.

As far as I know twitter has a rule system, they have certain rules that you have to apply otherwise they ban you, same goes for every user and not just some users. If you see a person who is doing something against the rules, report them, with enough reporting of a certain person you can get them banned as well, there is really nothing shocking about that because every single website is ruled the same, certain rules and everyone has to abide and if one doesn't then they get banned.

Trump was an idiot who rallied people to occupy the capitol which is still not passing from senate and thankfully FBI is at least jailing some people and that is very good outcome, after that it was very normal for him to get banned, if I collected bunch of people that resulted with them occupying the capital, then I would be at least banned from twitter, probably would be jailed forever as well.

You are shifting the goal post. No one here is defending Trump. The issue here is that Twitter is selective in banning the users. Trump may or may not deserve a ban, as he refused to condemn the capitol rioters. So he has only himself to blame. But far worse tweets have been made by those to the left of the political spectrum. The former prime minister of Malaysia threatened to massacre tens of millions of French. And the last time I checked, his Twitter account was intact. Twitter refused to act against such people.


The tweet from Mahathir Mohamad got thousands of likes and it was viewed by hundreds of thousands of users. Anyway, it is ridiculous to claim that users need to be banned only of they are popular.

twitter had been meddling almost everything in politics that's why Trump had been banned there. If he had the chance I guess he should have but during the time when he was the president. twitter had been used to silence the users who aren't with their views.

same with Laura Loomer. this is the reason why Laura Loomer attracts Jack Dorsey to Bitcoin Conference in Miami.  It's actually funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LewwptPBpA

Trump being trump lmao. On that note, I really don't think Nigeria banning twitter has anything that can help both sides. It's just like a nonsensical type of fight where if I hit you, you hit me, Why? Cause you hit me justification. No one even bothers why one was hit.
I don't necessarily think that Twitter went for selective implementation there due to politics, but rather due to how many people actually saw it. They have no choice. I mean, who would look at a tweet of random passerby A vs a tweet of the president right? They'd have to be selective on that since the latter reaches out to a far wider audience compared to the former.

Trump will love any man who supports his cause at any cost lmfao. He literally got banned from twitter for continuous indirect support to riots even after warnings, and kept claiming he won the election and Biden won by fraud which is a pretty good fake news, so obviously, it's not like he's innocent free speech is good, but spreading hate, misinformation and lies with it? Twitter is a private company as well, so they have their own regulations and rules, terms and conditions I guess. It's funny how Trump actually called in past that social media a good thing because his assumed "fake media" on TV never said positive things about him, but now when he's banned, he's crying selfishly!

How many people make their living out of Twitter in Nigeria (out of a population of 250 million)? It is not a valid reason to say that Twitter doesn't need to respect the rule of the land. And no one is against the rules and policies of Twitter. We are having issues not with the policies of Twitter, but because of the selective implementation of these policies. When they become selective, then it becomes political interference. Twitter is just a corporation. They can't interfere in politics all around the world, and push forward with their left-wing agenda.

I think there's a clown in the outside world of social media platform that's so happy when being praise making them to stand in the crowd. They may ban twitter but they can't ban the entire social media platforms and what twitter did to his(Trump's) account is right imo since he's starting to get toxic to somebody else. And yes, he deserves it because of his arrogance.

Donald Trump supported hydroxychloroquine as the most affordable, easiest to obtain and most effective treatment for COVID-19 for a very long time.

There may have been a significant shift where Trump threw hydroxychloroquine under a bus. In favor of remdesivir, regeneron, vaccines and other COVID drugs which are significantly more expensive and questionable as to whether they're as effective as hydroxychloroquine. That may be one of the best indicators of Trump abandoning policies that were in the best interest of americans. In favor of policies which are in the best favor of special interests.

I'm not a big fan of the state having the power to lawfully nationalise or ban private enterprise. I don't think its a policy people should support. Banning twitter, social media or big tech isn't a solution to any of our perceived problems.

Some of Trump's tweets were rather aggressive and offensive to certain groups of people, I am actually surprised the Twitter let that slide sometimes. Right now he's just pissed at 2 things: he's not a president and his tweets are deleted. He just wishes he had more power that's all.
If he banned Twitter in the US boy oh boy there would be rebels, so I guess it's a good thing he's not in charge anymore

I mean, what are the criteria for banning or outlawing a credible means of information? Like twitter in Nigeria. I see no reason to this if I'm to be frank with you. Individuals could be traced and cautioned for fake news or unlawful stories but then, there are other legit stories still on the platform and that cannot be completely ruled out. Social medias help more than we know it, in business and promotional services too.

I don't see this as a right step at all. Government of Nigeria is beginning to be too quick to anger and act as though ban is just the last and best resort to every provocation. Should they not be able to to control there emotions, they could as well live the office than playing God.

Though there’s a lot of fake news on twitter I don’t think it’s right to ban twitter for that purpose because social media is the voice of the people now so the world knows what’s happening on a specific country since media are also corrupt. Trump is a big troll, hate speech and being arrogant is not good for me, he deserve it.

Yes, this is Trump’s revenge on Twitter because Twitter banned him when he was the president of the United States. I am surprised that Trump, who was the head of the largest country for freedoms and democracy in the world, congratulates the head of a dictatorial country on this dictatorial act that suppresses freedoms and confiscates ideas, it is an agreement of corrupt political interests What these corrupt politicians do.

As much as it is necessary for twitter and other social media platforms to stay away from the politics of any country, it is a company that has its own set of guidelines for users to adhere to before posting. If any user's post or tweet goes against these guidelines, they reserve the right to delete such tweet and this is exactly what happened.
Twitter deleted the Nigerian President's tweet because it is against their rules in that the tweet is genocidal according to Twitter.
Secondly, I believe the Presidency of Nigeria took the matter a bit too far. They, because of an issue with Twitter, banned it in the country. You should know that quite a lot of people in that country make their living off Twitter and this is the government saying it doesn't care just because of one deleted tweet.

I agree with you on this issue, though I am not approving of anyone banning Twitter or any social media platform for that matter. I find it horrible when social media would be imposing its ban on people or organizations they deemed to be dangerous as it is not actually on their power to do so - yes they can do fact-checking, and they can even come up with warnings but beyond that it would already be necessary censorship. Twitter is already inserting itself into "What's happening" in doing so instead of becoming a platform where anyone can freely express his thoughts and ideas as long as they are legal. We have already entered high-tech censorship and generally this is not good.

Twitter is a social media platform and it should behave like one. Things get complicated when it intervenes in the politics and take sides. If they want to play politics, then they should not claim that they are just an intermediary. It also means that they are responsible for the content of their users. And this is applicable not only for Twitter, but also for other social media platforms such as FaceBook and Instagram. We all saw how social media can influence the elections, when these platforms put a complete gag on information related to Hunter Biden's laptop (a few weeks before the POTUS elections). Even a Washington Post article was removed from Twitter (despite the left wing bias of that particular news paper). On the other hand, left wing campaigners were actively posting fake news and Twitter took no action despite multiple users reporting them.

The twitter ban in Nigeria gets more hit across board, from social groups, lawyers and human rights groups to house of representatives summoning the minister of information "to know the processes to the reason" for twitter ban (though the summon coming late with more 10 days gap for investigation by committee).    You can read here

As to the House of Representatives summon, it is actually laughable that the representative house would still be seeking the reason for the ban or what transpired even when a common man on the street that is in line with internet and social media knows exactly what happened, now the house is still going to allow 10 days window for "what not investigation". This means the 10 days means continued ban, job losses, businesses folding cum furtherance of untold poverty and hardship.



Now Trump has come up with his public stunt of lauding the Nigerian government for such abysmal action of continuing muffling of Nigerian voice, freedom of speech and expression all enshrined in the constitution and several charters including UN.

I believe that Trump's ban by Twitter last year after instigating the violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol may be a contributing reason for such speech.