What does his presidential status of a nation or his support in an election unrelated to Twitter have to do with him breaching their terms of service?
I find it interesting, because it kind of implies that you would want him to get special treatment because of his status/position in this manner. But on Twitter he is nothing more than an account like everyone else. They control the platform that they created and own. Which they were able to do due to the free market policies established in the US.
The real problem in my opinion is using Twitter as a source of information. There is an arbitrary character limit, threads which allow Tweets to be taken out of context and the ability to ban anyone from reading ones Tweets.
Any sane person would realize that such a platform is perfect for propaganda and that it should not be used as a communication channel (by a government official).
Opposite ideologies have value yes, I was emphasizing on consolidation of power in a select few and alluding to fake competition. Also, the fact that Dorsey is flip flopping on a decision you can ultimately pin on him can be attributed to financially driven. I’m not against or for the ban, they can do whatever they want with their property.
Trump was a laughingstock in Western Europe. The rest of the world mostly either liked him (Bolsonaro in Brazil, Modi in India, Taiwan, etc) or was neutral. Opposite is true with Biden now: great relations with Western Europe, but Saudi Arabia won't take his calls
I changed my mind on it a bit when Biden popped up; I realised so much of what was funny/poked fun at in Trump were traits of Biden's (albeit less exaggerated perhaps) too, that really it's just a certain sort of American and sure maybe Trump's a bit of a caricature of it but it made him a bit less uniquely crazy how on Earth did that happen in my eyes.
Like Jeremy Corbyn's pretty far left wing, but politics aside he had a chance at being PM of the UK for a bit; maybe he would've seemed like a strange bumbling old man in other parts of the world, but here he's a recognisable type of person if you see what I mean, not massively unusual.
I just ended up thinking it was an attack on his (Trump's) character; that it worked so well outside of the USA because it's an unfamiliar one. But that's not fair, could even be called racist, and isn't on the basis of anything meaningful like actual policy etc. - which I know next to nothing about and seldom saw anything of substance reported on it; so I just disengaged from it really.
Now that we're more than a year past the election, it's pretty sobering to read the exact statements by Trump and how Twitter interpreted them as "We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy".
One of the "damning" statements was “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Trump should have been banned before even running for office? Oh is that how it works now in Silicon Valley? Can we just ban all right wing politicians from twitter so they don't get elected? Sounds like democracy!
Yes? The vast majority people who get banned on Twitter or FB are banned before even running for office, whether they are left or right or center. Why should Trump be different?
Mh, yes we actually can. These platforms can ban anyone and it's fully within their rights. They are not regulated in a way which prevents them from doing that.
Sounds like liberty on their end, doesn't it? I do find it a little ironic, this is what you get in free market capitalism.
