[rvz]

Clickbait headline differs from actual reality:

> Twitter has confirmed that the official US presidential accounts will be wiped of their millions of followers before being transferred to the Biden administration.

So, the official accounts of @VP, @FLOTUS, @PressSec, @Cabinet, @WhiteHouse, @POTUS, etc will have their followers reset to zero despite Biden's team fighting against Twitter's decision. Not his personal accounts.

Sometimes it is better to use a different source than this article.

Here's a better article: [0]

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-will-face-different-twitt...

[mattmanser]

Something that was not done when Obama handed to Trump.

Did you even read the article? The WSJ one agrees with the BBC one!

[rvz]

> Did you even read the article?

Surely you must have read the HN guidelines [0]:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

> The WSJ one agrees with the BBC one!

Generally, it is also in agreement but in comparison to the WSJ, BBC News Online lacks quality and the content of the article is glossed over and omits information, etc.

The BBC headline is typical click-bait when compared to the WSJ, and BBC News online is riddled with this in their articles to drive clicks on their site. Not something I would want my tax money to fund.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html