[mrangle]

When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish.

I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.

[coolbreezetft24]

I'm not sure what you mean by banned or censorship, but Twitter isn't the government and I'm not sure how this example is "anti-democratic authoritarianism". Seems like they should be allowed to ban people from their platform who violate the terms of service. There are tons of platform/content providers that don't allow specific types of content even though it is legal.

If people disagree with Twitter they can leave the platform for another one or shareholders can act and have the firm change course. Trump still daily says whatever he wants on other platforms without the government censoring him.

[mrangle]

What I mean is the undeniable integration of government agencies with Twitter Trust and Safety, at the time.

Right here, this ends our discussion.

But also the partisan support for the ban, on partisan grounds, from Congress and the government agency integrated Media. Which is government interference with the ability to speak via that channel.

All of this "should be able to do what they want" is a nonexistent reality. It's fantasy.

The Terms of Service, itself, was crafted under agency pressure. Though, this is a minor detail compared to the more ham fisted integration.

You can be willfully or otherwise oblivious. However, no one owes that type of conversation much engagement. It's your job to become aware of the facts and broken norms surrounding the event if you want to have further discussion.

[frumper]

Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.

[robador]

And as a private company they had the right to do so. Freedom!

[NickC25]

Strange rabbit holes?

How about Twitter having a preexisting, clear Terms of Service that ALL users must abide by?

Don't forget that Twitter was at the time and remains a private venue that was not and is not a government run organization or application. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. The 1st amendment covers what one can say in public, but explicitly does not cover private repercussions for said speech, ONLY government repercussions. Twitter is not public, and was not public. Private businesses and entities can and do control speech on their platforms and premises all the time, and have numerous laws protecting their right to do so.

How about this one:

User: Hi, I'd like to sign up for an account.

Twitter: Sure, you're able to do so. Here are the rules we've established for our platform. By signing up, you're agreeing to our rules.

User: OK, I agree. deliberately breaks rules

Twitter: You can't do that. We are warning you. This is a private business, and you agreed to our terms. Your actions are in violation of the terms you agreed to.

User: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah muh free speech deliberately breaks rules again

Twitter: We're not joking. You can't post that sort of thing. It's against our rules. Do it one more time and we will be forced to ban you.

User: deliberately breaks rules again

Twitter: we are fully within our rights to ban you, and we're doing so.

User: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah political persecution waaaaaaaaaaaaaah I'm going to sue you!

It has nothing to do with who the user is or was. Private businesses have full legal right to exercise control over their platforms. You break the rules, you are banned, simple as that.

[frumper]

I apparently didn't clearly convey my message. He'd have to use some twisted logic to blame the banning of Trump from twitter on the influence from government agencies and not on Twitter. That is what the person I was responding to was saying. I don't disagree with anything you said, nor do I think my original statement does in the context of the comment I replied to.

[mrangle]

There's nothing twisted nor interpretive about it. The FBI was fully integrated into Twitter Trust and Safety.

[mrangle]

You're ignorant of the facts of the situation.

[mrangle]

Trump was not "the head of the government agencies", in terms of functional control. Implying conspiratorial thinking is not an argument against the concrete facts. Which are that a). The FBI was integrated into Trust and Safety at Twitter b). Trust and Safety banned Trump while he was sitting President, against Trump's will c) Supreme Court case law long ago determined that any government involvement in private corporation speech decisions has to be considered to be an unconstitutional government violation of free speech. "Reasonable" is both untrue and immaterial.

Everyone citing "Freedom" here is ignorant of the facts and are going to be unhappy and surprised with how this matter is eventually settled by investigative bodies and courts.

[coolbreezetft24]

Trump was consistently pushing the envelope and crossing boundaries with his posts on twitter and finally decided to just ban him and face the consequences of that decision.

Your suggestion that the almost the entire media is controlled by the Democratic party or all very favourable to them is also very conspiratorial - it's extremely easy to find a massive amount of media that is comically critical of both parties at all times regardless of which one is in power at the time. Contrast this with actual authoritarian governments like China and Russia.

[mrangle]

Nope. The FBI was long integrated into twitter Trust and Safety. At that point, Twitter's speech decisions ceased being a private matter according to Supreme Court case Law.

Please. Give us all a break. There's nothing conspiratorial about noting that the Media favors the Democratic Party. You're gaslighting, and moreover your effort is pointless. Fully half of the electorate knows this to be true, and that isn't going to change in our lifetime. They know it to be true because it has had terrible consequences.

It was the Media that both lent the political cover required for the Russiagate fiasco to continue for four years, effectively hamstringing an entire administration in spite of it going nowhere.

In addition, the entire nation witnesses, over and over again, that the media incites riots or demands prosecution of riots at their singular Will. Against the Will of Police. Against the Will of local governments and citizens. The Media incited and covered for nine months of domestic terrorist riots prior to the 2020 election, leading to the murder of almost thirty people. Essentially directing and covering for brownshirt terrorists for nine months before an election. The entire nation was terrorized for that extended period. To cover it up, they then demanded the strictest prosecutions of mimic rioters that were misbehaving for three hours, or even just trespassing with what they thought was tacit permission. The difference between the 9 month and 3 hour rioters? Media narrative and demands.

You can test out your spine on this matter, however ridiculous, but don't think that you'll get away with such assertions in this conversation.