Disagree that presidential power should bleed into private companies. He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side.
> He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side.
I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. That's a pretty significant lever to have over POTUS. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
In that case, the President will hold a press conference and ger coverage from every TV and YouTubel Channel and Facebook page, not to mention tens of thousands of Twitter users.
how did he break the contract with Twitter? the tweets twitter references hardly seem to encourage mob violence.
twitter subjectively interprets their own set of rules and it's clear there's a double standard.
when politicians on the left encourage protests and riots that result in the destruction and burning of private property, there are no repercussions.
and i'm not attempting to say that two wrongs make a right; encouraging violence or mobs is wrong, but Twitter's enforcement of their own rules is clearly influenced by political ideology.
I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. That's a pretty significant lever to have over POTUS. That's the point I'm trying to make here.