[save_ferris]

> 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.

[omarchowdhury]

> Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming.

The threat would be a criminal offense.

[geomark]

Threatening to deplatform is a criminal offense? What a world we live in.

[omarchowdhury]

No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense.

> where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something

[salawat]

Out of curiosity, what do you think makes it illegal: the coercive aspect, or that it's aimed at POTUS?

[omarchowdhury]

Both.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...

[alisonkisk]

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.

[daniellarusso]

I am pretty sure Dorsey could just impersonate the account and post or remove whatever.

No need for threats.