[trident5000]

I'm looking past Trump. The tech cartel can not only decide which party wins elections, they can decide which candidates within the winning party keep their seats. And they are getting more and more desperate to shape politics as they run from anti-trust. For me its too much power.

[GarrisonPrime]

A fair enough opinion, and a worthy discussion. But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions, rather than silencing Trump.

Edit: I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Whether their decision was wise or not certainly needs to be discussed. I’m just pointing out that “silencing the lunatic in the White House” isn’t the only potential explanation for their suspension of Trump’s account.

[benrbray]

I think it's dangerous to start banning politicians from using a public (even if privately owned) platform, especially when it plays into their narrative of oppression. Let him incriminate himself further until he's no longer a public official, then ban his personal account.

I especially don't agree with their decision to hide all of his past posts. If they allowed it to stay up for so long, it should remain permanently as part of the political context of this time period.

[ttt0]

And you think that banning him didn't do that? I am supposed to believe that they were so considered that he might say something that might cause some actions, but they didn't considered at all what their action of banning him will cause?

[GarrisonPrime]

That’s worthy of discussion. I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Just saying the issue isn’t as one-sided as many might like to believe it is.

[trident5000]

My issue here is that while I agree Trump is goofy and id like to see him go, the definitions of what is and is not dangerous ultimately is up to a handful of unelected corporate employees. Those definitions are and will more so align with corporate strategy and a bottom line. And while its not a freedom of speech issue in the strict legal sense, it is by a practical matter.

[GarrisonPrime]

I agree that is an issue, and should be discussed. I didn’t mean to imply Twitter’s decision was plainly correct.

[inglor_cz]

"But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions"

I believe that the effects of this permaban (and the seemingly coordinated effort to purge the Internet of Parler) will be pretty much the opposite, reenforcing paranoia about unelected tyrants more powerful than any office holder in the U.S.