As SpaceX chief Elon Musk put the Twitter deal on hold temporarily, former US President Donald Trump said the tech billionaire won't buy the social networking site at a "ridiculous price".

Musk had earlier announced he was buying Twitter for a massive $44 billion surprising analysts and Wall Street experts.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-algorithm-is-manipulating-users-says-elon-musk-479116">Also Read:&nbsp;Twitter algorithm is 'manipulating users', says Elon Musk</a>

However, this week the SpaceX boss declared that the deal is "temporarily on hold pending details" as he added that "supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5 per cent of users".

Trump echoed Musk's thoughts as he pointed out that&nbsp;"There is no way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price, especially since realising it is a company largely based on bots or spam accounts."

Watch:&nbsp;Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-elon-musk-puts-twitter-deal-on-hold-478756/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Fake anyone?” the ex-US president said on his microblogging site. "By the time you get rid of them, if that can even be done, what do you have? Not much?"

"If it weren't for the ridiculous billion dollar breakup fee, Elon would have already been long gone," the former US president said.

Trump was banned from Twitter after January 6&nbsp;Capitol riots last year. Trump said his microblogging site "Truth Social is much better than Twitter" while adding that it is "exploding" with "incredible engagement".

(With inputs from Agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As SpaceX chief Elon Musk put the Twitter deal on hold temporarily, former US President Donald Trump said the tech billionaire won't buy the social networking site at a "ridiculous price".

As SpaceX chief Elon Musk put the Twitter deal on hold temporarily, former US President Donald Trump said the tech billionaire won't buy the social networking site at a "ridiculous price". Musk had earlier announced he was buying Twitter for a massive $44 billion surprising analysts and Wall Street experts. Also Read: Twitter algorithm is 'manipulating users', says Elon Musk However, this week the SpaceX boss declared that the deal is "temporarily on hold pending details" as he added that "supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5 per cent of users". Trump echoed Musk's thoughts as he pointed out that "There is no way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price, especially since realising it is a company largely based on bots or spam accounts." Watch: Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold "Fake anyone?” the ex-US president said on his microblogging site. "By the time you get rid of them, if that can even be done, what do you have? Not much?" "If it weren't for the ridiculous billion dollar breakup fee, Elon would have already been long gone," the former US president said. Trump was banned from Twitter after January 6 Capitol riots last year. Trump said his microblogging site "Truth Social is much better than Twitter" while adding that it is "exploding" with "incredible engagement". (With inputs from Agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

No way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter, says Trump

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles."

McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency.

"They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said.

He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent."

The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats.

"Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said.&nbsp;

"What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong."

Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more.

(With inputs from agencies)

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles.

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles." McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency. "They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said. He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent." The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats. "Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said. "What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong." Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook rules are internally inconsistent, says oversight board leader

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company.

The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent.

It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it.

As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted.

While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention.

Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations?

What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems).

Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure.

It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest.

Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them.

That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place.

That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying.

Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian.

Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.”

The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.”

But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework.

What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale.

Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company. The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.” Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent. It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it. As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted. While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention. Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations? What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems). Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure. It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest. Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them. That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place. That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying. Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian. Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.” The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.” But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework. What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale. Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Trump is a problem Facebook’s oversight board was built not to solve

Indian-American Vijaya Gadde, 45, who takes care of Twitter's legal affairs has been instrumental in permanently suspending President Donald <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/arnold-schwarzenegger-blasts-trump-compares-us-capitol-violence-to-rise-of-nazi-germany-355912">Trump's</a> Twitter account.

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/twitter-permanently-suspends-donald-trumps-account-355517/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Twitter had earlier suspended Trump's account but later moved to block the US president's account amid riots in US Capitol which the company believed encouraged rioters.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The account of <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> has been permanently suspended from Twitter due to the risk of further violence. We've also published our policy enforcement analysis - you can read more about our decision here: <a href="https://t.co/fhjXkxdEcw">https://t.co/fhjXkxdEcw</a>
— Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) <a href="https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1347686841881821184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"The account of @realDonaldTrump has been permanently suspended from Twitter due to the risk of further violence," Gadde had tweeted on Friday.

President Trump's Twitter account was "permanently suspended due to the risk of further incitement of violence," the company said.

Gadde who was born in India grew up in Texas graduated from Cornell University and New York University Law School and had joined Twitter in 2011.

The Indian-American actively oversaw the US elections declaring that of the "300,000 flagged tweets, 456 were covered over by a warning message and had engagement features limited -- users could not like, retweet or reply to the posts."

"During the election period, Twitter posted messages on American users' pages which were seen 389 million times that "reminded people that election results were likely to be delayed, and that voting by mail is safe and legitimate," she said.

Vijaya Gadde had accompanied Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey when had met US President Donald Trump last year and had accompanied Dorsey when he met India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi three years ago.

Twitter said Trump's tweets were assessed under "glorification of violence"&nbsp;policy and that it determined that they were "highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the US&nbsp;Capitol on January 6, 2021."

"President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behaviour from this account in recent weeks," it added.

Indian-American Vijaya Gadde, 45, who takes care of Twitter's legal affairs has been instrumental in permanently suspending President Donald Trump's Twitter account.

Indian-American Vijaya Gadde, 45, who takes care of Twitter's legal affairs has been instrumental in permanently suspending President Donald Trump's Twitter account. Watch: Twitter had earlier suspended Trump's account but later moved to block the US president's account amid riots in US Capitol which the company believed encouraged rioters. The account of @realDonaldTrump has been permanently suspended from Twitter due to the risk of further violence. We've also published our policy enforcement analysis - you can read more about our decision here: https://t.co/fhjXkxdEcw — Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) January 8, 2021 × "The account of @realDonaldTrump has been permanently suspended from Twitter due to the risk of further violence," Gadde had tweeted on Friday. President Trump's Twitter account was "permanently suspended due to the risk of further incitement of violence," the company said. Gadde who was born in India grew up in Texas graduated from Cornell University and New York University Law School and had joined Twitter in 2011. The Indian-American actively oversaw the US elections declaring that of the "300,000 flagged tweets, 456 were covered over by a warning message and had engagement features limited -- users could not like, retweet or reply to the posts." "During the election period, Twitter posted messages on American users' pages which were seen 389 million times that "reminded people that election results were likely to be delayed, and that voting by mail is safe and legitimate," she said. Vijaya Gadde had accompanied Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey when had met US President Donald Trump last year and had accompanied Dorsey when he met India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi three years ago. Twitter said Trump's tweets were assessed under "glorification of violence" policy and that it determined that they were "highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021." "President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behaviour from this account in recent weeks," it added.

Meet Indian-American Vijaya Gadde who moved to ban Trump's Twitter account

Social networking giant Twitter quickly deleted new tweets from US&nbsp;President Donald Trump from an official government account after the social media site had banned his personal account.

"After a close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account," Twitter said in a <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html">blog post</a> explaining its decision, "we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence."&nbsp;

Also see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-tear-gas-explosives-and-gunfire-trump-supporters-storm-capitol-clash-with-police-354961">In pics-Tear gas, explosives and gunfire: Trump supporters storm Capitol, clash with police</a>

US President Donald Trump on Friday accused Twitter of conspiring with his political enemies "to silence me," after the social media platform permanently suspended his account.

"Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, 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," he said in a series of tweets from the official @POTUS account.

Twitter had&nbsp;temporarily blocked Trump's account on Wednesday,&nbsp;following the siege of Capitol Hill by pro-Trump protesters, and warned that additional violations by the president's accounts would result in a permanent suspension.

The social media platform was&nbsp;Trump's&nbsp;favourite megaphone and he has&nbsp;had more than 88 million followers.

Trump returned to Twitter late Thursday, posting a video message that seemed aimed at calming tensions after the mayhem caused by his supporters.

He acknowledged his presidency was ending and promised a smooth transition to Joe Biden, although he did not go so far as to congratulate or even say the name of his successor.

Twitter said at the time it was continuing to watch Trump's social media activity to determine whether further action was needed.

The decision to suspend Trump's account came after a pair of tweets on Friday, according to the one-to-many messaging platform.

In one of the tweets, Trump vowed that none of his supporters would be "disrespected," and in another, he said he would not be attending Biden's inauguration on January 20, as is customary.

"These two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President's statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behaviour from this account in recent weeks," Twitter said.

The company determined the tweets violated its "Glorification of Violence&nbsp;Policy," and that "user @realDonaldTrump&nbsp;should be immediately permanently suspended from the service."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="YouTube removes thousands of videos posted from Donald Trump's channel">YouTube removes thousands of videos posted from Donald Trump's channel</a>

Talk of new attack&nbsp;

Twitter said it also factored in that plans for more armed protests have been proliferating on and off the service, including a proposed second attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17.

Trump's tweeted statement about not attending the Inauguration has been received by some supporters as his continued rejection of the election's legitimacy and a sign that the event would be a "safe target" since he won't be there, according to Twitter.

The wording in Trump's Friday tweets was seen by some supporters as praise for those involved in what has been described as a coup attempt, and an indication he does not plan to smoothly yield power to Biden, Twitter said in the post.

Twitter confirmed that several hundred employees signed a letter to chief executive Jack Dorsey saying they were disturbed by the "insurrection" carried out by Trump supporters, who had been rallied by the president.

The employees called for Twitter to assess the role its platform played in Wednesday's events.

"Twitter encourages an open dialogue between our leadership and employees, and we welcome our employees to express their thoughts and concerns in whichever manner feels right to them," a company spokesperson said of the letter.

Social networking giant Twitter quickly deleted new tweets from US President Donald Trump from an official government account after the social media site had banned his personal account.

Social networking giant Twitter quickly deleted new tweets from US President Donald Trump from an official government account after the social media site had banned his personal account. "After a close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account," Twitter said in a blog post explaining its decision, "we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence." Also see: In pics-Tear gas, explosives and gunfire: Trump supporters storm Capitol, clash with police US President Donald Trump on Friday accused Twitter of conspiring with his political enemies "to silence me," after the social media platform permanently suspended his account. "Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, 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," he said in a series of tweets from the official @POTUS account. Twitter had temporarily blocked Trump's account on Wednesday, following the siege of Capitol Hill by pro-Trump protesters, and warned that additional violations by the president's accounts would result in a permanent suspension. The social media platform was Trump's favourite megaphone and he has had more than 88 million followers. Trump returned to Twitter late Thursday, posting a video message that seemed aimed at calming tensions after the mayhem caused by his supporters. He acknowledged his presidency was ending and promised a smooth transition to Joe Biden, although he did not go so far as to congratulate or even say the name of his successor. Twitter said at the time it was continuing to watch Trump's social media activity to determine whether further action was needed. The decision to suspend Trump's account came after a pair of tweets on Friday, according to the one-to-many messaging platform. In one of the tweets, Trump vowed that none of his supporters would be "disrespected," and in another, he said he would not be attending Biden's inauguration on January 20, as is customary. "These two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President's statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behaviour from this account in recent weeks," Twitter said. The company determined the tweets violated its "Glorification of Violence Policy," and that "user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service." Also read: YouTube removes thousands of videos posted from Donald Trump's channel Talk of new attack Twitter said it also factored in that plans for more armed protests have been proliferating on and off the service, including a proposed second attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17. Trump's tweeted statement about not attending the Inauguration has been received by some supporters as his continued rejection of the election's legitimacy and a sign that the event would be a "safe target" since he won't be there, according to Twitter. The wording in Trump's Friday tweets was seen by some supporters as praise for those involved in what has been described as a coup attempt, and an indication he does not plan to smoothly yield power to Biden, Twitter said in the post. Twitter confirmed that several hundred employees signed a letter to chief executive Jack Dorsey saying they were disturbed by the "insurrection" carried out by Trump supporters, who had been rallied by the president. The employees called for Twitter to assess the role its platform played in Wednesday's events. "Twitter encourages an open dialogue between our leadership and employees, and we welcome our employees to express their thoughts and concerns in whichever manner feels right to them," a company spokesperson said of the letter.

Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account, deletes POTUS' new tweets