>>the fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but
just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same.

I have outlined what my line is, True Threat [1], is a legal standard: "‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” [1]

>>I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!"

I dont actively follow Trump's (or any other) twitter feed, I largely view Twitter as a cesspool just like I view Parler and all other Social Media including Facebook, Gab, even Reddit at this point. Mostly because each platform ends up becoming an ideological echo chamber for the most extreme views of their founding ideology, for the major platforms that ends up being left authoritarianism, for many of the alt-tech that ends up being right authoritarianism..

Since I am not authoritarian at all, left or right, those platforms hold little interest for me and I generally avoid those places. So I can not speak to all of Trump's tweets, though I do believe the partisan machine has generally applied the least favorable reading of all his public comments over the last several years and often time claim "dog whistles" far too often to the point where my general position is one of "Boy who cried wolf" when I see these types of comments.

My belief in this was reinforced by twitter's very very weak justification for their permaban [2]. The posts they highlighted in their justification were not something I would consider to be bannable speech

>>whereas every other site removes it.

Which I also explained due to Parler's very different position on what constitutes bannable speech, they take the same position that generally favor i.e all Legal Speech should be allowed, if a person could not be arrested and jailed for the speech then it should be permitted.

Now I have a feeling you also want the law to be changed to the point where people can be jailed more aggressively for their speech not simply be banned from a popular website. One of the reasons I generally oppose popular platforms banned unpopular speech is that fact that the law often follows popular opinion, thus it is popular to ban speech today it will not be long before the overton window shifts where maybe we need to water down the protections of legal speech, to the point where we are tossing people in cages for their unpopular speech.

As a individualist, libertarian advocating for Geo-Libertarian public policies my opinions are often viewed as unpopular, it concerns me that we are attempting to create safe spaces and echo chambers online where no dissenting opinions are welcome, and if you say an unpopular thing you are painted as a racist, bigot, sexist or some other immoral designation. For example I have been called a racist simply because I oppose income based taxation.

>>Okay, so where are your examples?

Just go back to the BLM protests/riots there we all kinds of calls for violence that went unchallenged. Then there is antifa, hell for a time there was popular subculture around "Punch a Nazi" and of-course all conservatives were "Nazi's"

[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

[2] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...