[seph-reed]

Why wouldn't you? Life is way too short to pass up on the opportunity to ban a president. The lulz would last centuries.

[ipsum2]

Shareholder responsibilities. I would guess that a good chunk of Twitter users are there to read and interact with the president's tweets.

[smt88]

I don't know that the users are directly there to interact with the pres, but Twitter certainly benefits from being the US President's megaphone.

They get mentioned in the news hundreds of times a day, and they're "the" platform for all celebs posting their thoughts.

If POTUS moves to, say, Facebook, they lose all that free advertising.

[seph-reed]

> Shareholder responsibilities

There's nothing I'd rather say on my deathbed than "I was really good for the shareholders." Seriously, life is too short. Ban the president. Go down in history. Be someone. Jack or whoever will die being nothing more than a low-tier mascot for the long dead American dream. But banning the president... it would be very literally epic.

What I really want to say on my deathbed is "I lived a great story," so IMO it's a no brainer.

[viraptor]

What do you mean "interact"? He virtually never posts any responses, the account is close to broadcast-only. There's also no real interaction in the replies: even if you manage to scroll past the kneejerk responses and product spam thriving on controversy, what are the chances you'll find anyone to actually interact with?

[foogazi]

By “interact with the tweets” I see as fwd, replies, sharing

How much digital ink is spent on exhaust from his tweets?

[thomascgalvin]

He retweets racist nonsense constantly. If you want to add "re-tweeted by the President of the United States" to your resume, you just have to keep @-tagging him with conspiracy theories about Biden, and there's a decent chance he'll take the bait.