[jackson1442]

I personally have no qualms publicly posting corporate solicitations on the internet. Had it been a message of personal nature, it would be an entirely different story.

Regardless, it seems abundantly clear that this is his _job_, and he is not at fault for following the directions of his corporate overlords. No one's saying to go trash his house, and all the information he posted (name, photo) is publicly attached to his linkedin profile that is accessible to any authenticated LinkedIn user.

[015a]

Agreed; while redacting the name and photo would be the cordial thing to do, I don't believe these actions warrant a ban. There is a difference between posting the name of someone who didn't make an effort to be public, and the name of someone who has a public profile on a public social network (Linkedin) in the course of an unsolicited communication.

Think it through for a second; if he had, instead of posting the name and avatar of the user in the screenshot, at-tagged the sales rep's Twitter account; would he have gotten banned? I think not. That's totally normal behavior on Twitter; it happens a billion times every day. And its exactly the same thing.

Twitter has, in the past, left Trump's account up for far, far worse offenses. They need to get their act together. The word I'm hearing around Wall Street is that Twitter's moderation strategy is one of the bigger reasons why the company is so undervalued, and investors are becoming concerned that there's too much Emotion, not enough Process, in their decision making, well, process. Its a critical thing to get right in a social media platform; too little and you get Parler or russian election interference, too much and it becomes unusable. Twitter is getting it wrong; very very wrong.