A conversation; Should Catholics be part of Elon Musk’s Twitter?

[Fallen Prophet]

He broke the terms & conditions of use he agreed to when he set up his account, and despite multiple warnings, he persisted to do so. So they closed his account.

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Did you actually read what he wrote and how Twitter decided to interpret them?

He did not violate their policies.

 

[Yazata]

Twitter is and always will be a hellscape lol

I disagree vehemently. That "hellscape" idea is just what the establishment media wants people to believe, as they try to scare people away from Twitter and towards what they curate and what they want people to believe. Twitter is probably one of the best sources of straight news that exists, far better than anything curated by "professional journalists" (an oxymoron). Journalism today is seen by its practitioners as an engine of "social change" which make journalists something approaching propagandists.

I am extraordinarily interested in spaceflight. I mean, where else would one learn that Rocketlab has just pushed their first booster-recovery attempt back a day to May 2 (UTC)/May 3 (local New Zealand time), if not from Rocketlab's own Twitter account? Twitter is where one finds the latest information about prototype spaceship construction at Starbase, in detail infinitely beyond anything available in the conventional media. (Where else can you learn the details of the damage to booster 7's "downcomer" complete with leaked photos from inside the booster's LOX tank? Or even learn what a 'downcomer' is in the first place?) Its where you can read Tory Bruno's, Elon Musk's and Peter Beck's remarks about what they are doing and what they hope to do, along with countless ofhers in the "New Space" industry direct from them and not processed by somebody else hoping to tell you what that additional person thinks it all means.

Here in California, when there are wildfires, the best source of information is the Twitter pages of local Sheriff's departments on evacuations and road closures, along with the Twitter pages of agencies like CalFire. Along with countless regular people reporting what they see and what conditions are like where they are. I'm sure that the same thing is true during similar events there in Australia. Why wait a day for conventional media to report the same news in far less granular detail, when their sources are exactly the same as you are reading for yourself on Twitter?

Any time there is a breaking news event Twitter allows one to go direct to the best sources of local information. Local police, public agencies, or just a wide variety of individuals reporting what they see.

Take Ukraine. Pretty much every Ukrainian has a cell-phone. They photograph and report what they see. If you want to know what's happening on the ground in gritty town-by-town detail, it's all there. In fact in Ukraine, we are seeing the rise of what is called Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and there are twitter accounts that collect it. Twitter often knows things well before the vaunted CIA finds out and the professionals are taking increasing notice. There are analysts in Langley and in the Pentagon tasked with following Twitter.

Where the "hellscape" idea might arguably be more applicable is in the realm of political opinion. And that isn't really the fault of Twitter, it's simply illustrative of the incredibly toxic hostility and divisions that are endemic in Western discourse these days. We see much the same thing right here on RF when the topic turns to "hot-button" social issues.

The people hailing Elon Musk of all people as some sort of free speech Jesus makes me involuntarily roll my eyes

He may or may not be "a Jesus" (an awfully tendentious thing to say). But he's clearly right in this instance and on the side of the angels. I APPLAUD HIM.

That's my own personal opinion. While I don't expect everyone else to agree with me, that's precisely the point isn't it? That I shouldn't have the ability to silence anyone who doesn't think as I do. Well, neither should a crew of hugely partisan hard-left hipsters in San Francisco have the power to shape the world's conversation and (they hope) the world's thinking. That's a totalitarian vision and I oppose it utterly.

Twitter can kick off anyone it wants to. It is largely irrelevant if I agree with that or not. That’s just what it is.

I'm not convinced that's legally true. Twitter might be private, but it's arguably a public accomodation under the law, just like a lunch counter in 1950's Selma Alabama arguably was. The argument that Twitter can simply refuse to serve half the American public (those who voted for President Trump) on the same terms that it serves partisan democrats (no matter how radical they might be) might not be dissimilar to the lunch counter arguing that as a private enterprise it had the right to refuse to serve black Americans. The arguments advanced by the civil rights movement back then (that if you are serving the general public, then you have to serve all of the public) might apply here too.

But Elon's buying Twitter seems to have made that kind of legal argument unnecessary.

I am entirely skeptical of whether or not Mr Musk will act in good faith and I’m equally skeptical that it will be internally consistent.

I am entirely confident that Elon will act in what he perceives as good faith. After all, he didn't buy Twitter in hopes of making money, he bought it as a matter of principle. Whatever disquiet I have comes from the fact that Elon's idea of "good faith" might be rather different than my own.

But that being said, if his purpose is to make Twitter a venue for free speech, I'm reasonably confident that he won't have his thumb on the scale. That's the ideal anyway, and it's certainly better than what we had before he bought it. It's hard to imagine him making Twitter worse.

If a user’s continued behaviour becomes too inconvenient to their bottom line (or becomes illegal) no amount of cries of “my free speech” will save said user. Again doesn’t matter which side of the political aisle they hail from.

Elon has already said that the rules that he anticipates for Twitter are basically the boundaries of the law. Hence I expect a ban hammer for things like child-porn, threats of violence, extortion, fraud and criminal conspiracy. Basically any sort of speech that might be illegal in face-to-face life. But expression of unpopular political opinion will be allowed as long as it is legal.

Freedom of thought and the survival of democracy demand it.

I don't know how Twitter proposes to address laws in some countries that might make criticism of the ruler or a particular ideology (like Islam some places) illegal. Will Twitter recognize those laws? I hope not. But it presents a potential problem.

 

[Sheldon]

Did you actually read what he wrote and how Twitter decided to interpret them?

He did not violate their policies.

Yes I did, yes he did, I just linked a substantive explanation from Twitter on the ban, and the reasons behind it, and FWIW they are entitled to ban anyone they see fit, for whatever reason they see fit, since it is their site, but they cut him far more slack than they would most ordinary users, and for pretty obvious reasons.

 

[Sheldon]

The argument that Twitter can simply refuse to serve half the American public (those who voted for President Trump) on the same terms that it serves partisan democrats (no matter how radical they might be)

That's your straw man argument, and Trump's of course. It isn't true though, he wasn't banned for being woefully partisan.

 

[SomeRandom]

I disagree vehemently. That "hellscape" idea is just what the establishment media wants people to believe, as they try to scare people away from Twitter and towards what they curate and what they want people to believe. Twitter is probably one of the best sources of straight news that exists, far better than anything curated by "professional journalists" (an oxymoron). Journalism today is seen by its practitioners as an engine of "social change" which make journalists something approaching propagandists.

I…respectfully disagree.
Whilst I understand using it for a news source, it’s a hellscape. I came to that conclusion by merely using it. I don’t think I’ve watched so called “mainstream media” in years. I’m a millenial. News programs are for boomers lol
(Sorry boomers!!!)

I am extraordinarily interested in spaceflight. I mean, where else would one learn that Rocketlab has just pushed their first booster-recovery attempt back a day to May 2 (UTC)/May 3 (local New Zealand time), if not from Rocketlab's own Twitter account? Twitter is where one finds the latest information about prototype spaceship construction at Starbase, in detail infinitely beyond anything available in the conventional media. (Where else can you learn the details of the damage to booster 7's "downcomer" complete with leaked photos from inside the booster's LOX tank? Or even learn what a 'downcomer' is in the first place?) Its where you can read Tory Bruno's, Elon Musk's and Peter Beck's remarks about what they are doing and what they hope to do, along with countless ofhers in the "New Space" industry direct from them and not processed by somebody else hoping to tell you what that additional person thinks it all means.

That’s so cool

Here in California, when there are wildfires, the best source of information is the Twitter pages of local Sheriff's departments on evacuations and road closures, along with the Twitter pages of agencies like CalFire. Along with countless regular people reporting what they see and what conditions are like where they are. I'm sure that the same thing is true during similar events there in Australia. Why wait a day for conventional media to report the same news in far less granular detail, when their sources are exactly the same as you are reading for yourself on Twitter?

I think I got my bushfire info from online sources. I don’t think I used Twitter though. If you’re in a zone that is dangerous the government just sends automated alerts to your phone these days.

Any time there is a breaking news event Twitter allows one to go direct to the best sources of local information. Local police, public agencies, or just a wide variety of individuals reporting what they see.

Ehh so do all social media platforms. Including apps that the dreaded “mainstream media” themselves use. Your news stations must be living in the Stone Age if they can’t report things as they happen immediately
That’s been a thing for years here
And our tech isn’t all that great

Take Ukraine. Pretty much every Ukrainian has a cell-phone. They photograph and report what they see. If you want to know what's happening on the ground in gritty town-by-town detail, it's all there. In fact in Ukraine, we are seeing the rise of what is called Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) and there are twitter accounts that collect it. Twitter often knows things well before the vaunted CIA finds out and the professionals are taking increasing notice. There are analysts in Langley and in the Pentagon tasked with following Twitter.

Same as Tik Tok I would think.

Where the "hellscape" idea might arguably be more applicable is in the realm of political opinion. And that isn't really the fault of Twitter, it's simply illustrative of the incredibly toxic hostility and divisions that are endemic in Western discourse these days. We see much the same thing right here on RF when the topic turns to "hot-button" social issues.

I can agree with that. But I vastly prefer other platforms even still
This is not even a political thing, people in general seem to lose all decorum on venues such as Twitter. It’s not worth the effort
I’ve tried only to be slapped in the face for my efforts. No more I say

He may or may not be "a Jesus" (an awfully tendentious thing to say). But he's clearly right in this instance and on the side of the angels. I APPLAUD HIM.

Time will tell
I remain skeptical

That's my own personal opinion. While I don't expect everyone else to agree with me, that's precisely the point isn't it? That I shouldn't have the ability to silence anyone who doesn't think as I do. Well, neither should a crew of hugely partisan hard-left hipsters in San Francisco have the power to shape the world's conversation and (they hope) the world's thinking. That's a totalitarian vision and I oppose it utterly.

That’s fine
Say and think whatever you want. That’s your right.
But show me in your constitution where it says you are absolutely guaranteed a platform to say your piece. I’m merely curious

I'm not convinced that's legally true. Twitter might be private, but it's arguably a public accomodation under the law, just like a lunch counter in 1950's Selma Alabama arguably was. The argument that Twitter can simply refuse to serve half the American public (those who voted for President Trump) on the same terms that it serves partisan democrats (no matter how radical they might be) might not be dissimilar to the lunch counter arguing that as a private enterprise it had the right to refuse to serve black Americans. The arguments advanced by the civil rights movement back then (that if you are serving the general public, then you have to serve all of the public) might apply here too.

I’m not versed in US law, so I’ll take your word for it.

But Elon's buying Twitter seems to have made that kind of legal argument unnecessary.

I remain highly skeptical
Sorry, not sorry.
Other platforms have tried to do the same thing Elon is proposing, only to find that it isn’t actually a long lasting business model

I am entirely confident that Elon will act in what he perceives as good faith. After all, he didn't buy Twitter in hopes of making money, he bought it as a matter of principle. Whatever disquiet I have comes from the fact that Elon's idea of "good faith" might be rather different than my own.

You have way more trust in billionaires than I ever will.

But that being said, if his purpose is to make Twitter a venue for free speech, I'm reasonably confident that he won't have his thumb on the scale. That's the ideal anyway, and it's certainly better than what we had before he bought it. It's hard to imagine him making Twitter worse.

Hopefully

Elon has already said that the rules that he anticipates for Twitter are basically the boundaries of the law. Hence I expect a ban hammer for things like child-porn, threats of violence, extortion, fraud and criminal conspiracy. Basically any sort of speech that might be illegal in face-to-face life. But expression of unpopular political opinion will be allowed as long as it is legal.

I hope so. But like every businessman on the planet, his main concern will be his bottom line. Always remember that

Freedom of thought and the survival of democracy demand it.

I would argue that disinformation campaigns suck the soul from our democratic society. I hope Twitter addresses that going forward. But I suspect such campaign pushers will cite “freedom of speech” to negate pushback. I mean they have the freedom of speech too, right?

I don't know how Twitter proposes to address laws in some countries that might make criticism of the ruler or a particular ideology (like Islam some places) illegal. Will Twitter recognize those laws? I hope not. But it presents a potential problem.

That is true.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you don't like it, don't read their tweets.

Simple.


If you want only your own views and no one else's, buy Twitter out from Musk and you can censer to your hearts content.

For instance Twitter users usually read the tweets of the users they follow.
So if you don't like a Twitter user...don't follow them.

 

[rational experiences]

I always said as a poor human I'm not poor as I never introduced civilisation invention status.

Man human had.

Yet if I win a lot of money I would substantiate old abandoned buildings changed into homeless shelters...with a guaranteed assistance to life supported conditions.

Poor countries given an appraisal of human nature needs....to build food subsistence schemes such as building types. To support food growth and water collection. Giving everyone mutual home standard water collection also.

My dream knowing nurtured family responds nurtured.

I then would teach my lying rich man brother that he was lying about natural life observations. And tell him to stop wasting natural life on earth with out of space schemes for his self titilliations.

As AI invention isn't first human life. Life in nature is first and of utmost family importance.

Living in a housing trust life gave me my teachings which I believed in.

Mutual equal life is family life and not your scheming.

AI never controlled human choices the teaching they occur without AI first...unnatural life choices.

 

[rational experiences]

I always said as a poor human I'm not poor as I never introduced civilisation invention status.

Man human had.

Yet if I win a lot of money I would substantiate old abandoned buildings changed into homeless shelters...with a guaranteed assistance to life supported conditions.

Poor countries given an appraisal of human nature needs....to build food subsistence schemes such as building types. To support food growth and water collection. Giving everyone mutual home standard water collection also.

My dream knowing nurtured family responds nurtured.

I then would teach my lying rich man brother that he was lying about natural life observations. And tell him to stop wasting natural life on earth with out of space schemes for his self titilliations.

As AI invention isn't first human life. Life in nature is first and of utmost family importance.

Living in a housing trust life gave me my teachings which I believed in.

Mutual equal life is family life and not your scheming.

AI never controlled human choices the teaching they occur without AI first...unnatural life choices.

And as men.can.make group choices not AI coerced in any terms you are wrong.

As AI first transmitted attacked any human chosen program was first worldwide. All life was lost instantly to use the program.

Too late scenario always as AI should never have been invented.

If you want to control freedom of speech then when the law was human passed it should have been upheld by those who passed it.

If you say I can stop false information communicating then stop communicating it. And have the AI program dismantled shut down.

Identifying the AI program was by those who studied mind contact mind coercion human brain mind studies.

Then those who transmitted it...one attack. To those who attacked their own program using that program again for biological human body changes.

Two attacks.

Humans are Living the too late to be mindful position.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not convinced that's legally true. Twitter might be private, but it's arguably a public accomodation under the law, just like a lunch counter in 1950's Selma Alabama arguably was.

Except they were breaking the law by discriminating on the basis of ethnicity and skin colour, whereas Trump simply refused to obey the conditions of use he signed when he created his Twitter account, it's a false equivalence. If the civil rights protestors had brought in their own food and drink, their right to be served would have disappeared, and it would have been perfectly legal.

The argument that Twitter can simply refuse to serve half the American public (those who voted for President Trump) on the same terms that it serves partisan democrats (no matter how radical they might be)

That's a straw man argument you've created. A pretty hilarious one as well, it also smacks of the kind of dishonest paranoia, that Trump was banned for persistently peddling. However if Twitter decided only rabid right wing nut jobs could post on their site, that would be perfectly legal, have you never watched Fox "news"?

The arguments advanced by the civil rights movement back then (that if you are serving the general public, then you have to serve all of the public) might apply here too.

They do, but you are not obliged to let them say whatever they want on your platform in violation of the terms and conditions they agreed to when they created an account, what you're comparing are illegal discrimination on the basis of skin colour, to someone's subjective opinions. While the constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, it does not mean you are entitled to voice those opinions on other people's platforms. If you don't believe me phone the New York Times and tell them they must let you voice your views in their paper. When they laugh, and refuse, try suing them. Do let us know how you get on.

 

[GardenLady]

Removing Trump was an evil thing. It was anti-God and anti-freedom.

I believe this statement is quite literally disconnected from reality.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe this statement is quite literally disconnected from reality.

I agree, just as most of Trump's tweets were. Sadly the worst kind of bias, only sees bias in others, often where it doesn't exist as well. Trump wasn't banned because of his extreme right wing views, he was banned for repeatedly violating the terms of use he agreed to, when he created his account.

Whether his own paranoia is genuine or a duplicitous attempt to play the victim is perhaps debatable, but many of his most devoted acolytes seem determined to outdo that paranoia.

The simple fact is that the price of democracy is that you must sometimes hear views expressed you strongly disagree with, or even find repugnant. The irony is that Trump seemed the worst example of someone who was unable to accept this, as of course is true of many of those who supported him.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For instance Twitter users usually read the tweets of the users they follow.
So if you don't like a Twitter user...don't follow them.

That's another way.

 

[pearl]

“One of the fiercest tests of Musk’s avowed commitment to expanding free speech on Twitter will lie in whether he withstands pressure from Beijing to whitewash criticisms and challenges of China on the platform,” said Suzanne Nossel, CEO of non-profit advocacy group PEN America. “Whatever incremental changes he makes on the platform in the name of free speech risk being subsumed beneath the weight of a heavy Chinese hand controlling what Musk has rightly dubbed a global public square.”
Musk’s Grand Vision for Twitter Faces Reality Check in Asia (msn.com)

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Yes I did, yes he did, I just linked a substantive explanation from Twitter on the ban, and the reasons behind it, and FWIW they are entitled to ban anyone they see fit, for whatever reason they see fit, since it is their site, but they cut him far more slack than they would most ordinary users, and for pretty obvious reasons.

First off - "substantive"? Really?

I hope I never voice my support for anyone - that they should not be disrespected or treated unfairly - on Twitter - lest they consider me to be a terrorist.

Or - what if I tell people that I will not be attending an event - that must mean that I am protesting that event and that I want people to commit acts of violence there.

Twitter's first claim was BS.

There have been other U.S. Presidents who did not attend the inaugurations of their opponents and Trump's belief that the election was illegitimate was well-known.

Hadn't we just gone through four years of an entire political party ranting on Twitter - claiming that the 2016 election was illegitimate, and that Trump was not "their" President?

This is not even to mention all the allusions to violence directed at the sitting U.S President, his family and his staff - a lot of which took place on Twitter

All of those people were allowed to keep their Twitter accounts.

So - actual calls to violence won't get you banned - but ambiguous "interpretations" will.

Don't dictators, terrorists, war criminals, etc still have Twitter accounts?

Twitter's second claim was also BS.

Every time a past U.S. President refused to attend their opponent's inauguration - everything transitioned orderly - so why are they making this s**t up?

Twitter's third claim was also BS.

There is literally zero "substantive" evidence to back up the claim that his refusal to go to former V.P. Biden's inauguration was a call to violence.

Does Twitter believe that every other U.S President that didn't attend their opponent's inauguration were also calling their supporters to commit violence?

They basically labelled the sitting U.S. President a terrorist based on nothing, and it was - and still is - disgusting.

Doesn't the fact that no violent acts were committed at the inauguration negate this claim - therefore proving Twitter wrong?

Why didn't President Trump's ban get lifted once Twitter was proven to be wrong?

Twitter's fourth claim was also BS.

So - basically - if anyone identified as an "American Patriot" - Twitter considered them to be terrorists.

Absolutely disgusting.

Twitter's fifth claim was also BS.

How does President Trump's claims about his supporters continuing to have a voice and to not be disrespected mean that he did not plan to facilitate an "orderly transition"?

Shouldn't the fact that an "orderly transition" did take place negate Twitter's second and fifth BS claims?

Why didn't President Trump's ban get lifted once Twitter was proven to be wrong?

Twitter's last claim was also BS.

Even if there were plans for a "secondary attack" - unless they can prove that President Trump was somehow involved with those plans - how can they blame him for them?

Shouldn't the fact that no such attack took place negate this claim - proving Twitter wrong?

Why didn't President Trump's ban get lifted once Twitter was proven to be wrong?

Nothing about Twitter's explanation was "substantive".

It's nice to know that you support Twitter banning whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

That Christian/Muslim baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is glad to have your support.

That restaurant owner that refuses to serve Black people likes that you agree with their decision.

That employer who would never give a raise to a woman is relieved to hear it.

Oh sorry - I shouldn't use the word "woman" - since you don't know what that is.

To you - it is a word that is used to describe certain people - very vague and meaningless.

Being inconsistent, completely one-sided and having "rules for thee but not for me" has led to Twitter's comeuppance.

 

[Sheldon]

First off - "substantive"? Really?

Yes, I'd say so.

Trump's belief that the election was illegitimate was well-known.

Well known and completely unfounded, and a dangerous lie he started to peddle before even a single vote was cast, by claiming publicly the only way he could lose the election was if he was cheated out of it. The claims were investigated in over 60 court cases, some of them by the supreme court, and no significant voter fraud was found, quod erat demonstrandum. The fact you want to believe this lie doesn't really interest me, and of course has no bearing on Twitter's right to censor and censure people on their platform.

Hadn't we just gone through four years of an entire political party ranting on Twitter - claiming that the 2016 election was illegitimate, and that Trump was not "their" President?

Did they incite a violent armed riot at the capitol building, in order to cause an armed insurrection, and violate the constitution, or were they just registering their opinion about the evidence that later came to light about alarming outside influence in the run up the election? My understanding is they were not talking about voter fraud, which is a pretty serious accusation, that is enormously damaging to the democratic process.

So - actual calls to violence won't get you banned - but ambiguous "interpretations" will.

I'm dubious about this claim as well, but if you feel strongly report any Tweets you feel are advocating violence of any kind. This does not of course absolve Trump of his obligation not to violate the terms of service of his Titter account however.

Don't dictators, terrorists, war criminals, etc still have Twitter accounts?

What the Hell are you asking me for? If you think anyone is violating the terms and conditions of their account then report it, Trump was not stopped from creating an account, he had his account banned for repeated infractions of those T&C's.

Twitter's second claim was also BS.

Quelle surprise, but again I'm dubious, as you seem to be pretty biased here.

Every time a past U.S. President refused to attend their opponent's inauguration - everything transitioned orderly - so why are they making this s**t up?

Taken in isolation Trump's petulantly childish refusal to attend the inauguration of President Biden, was not the reason he was banned from Twitter. I think you are misrepresenting the facts here. However as they stated in their substantive explanation

• "The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."

So they were not citing this alone as the reason, as you have rather hilariously suggested here. Given his incitement of his supporter to violence at the Capitol building, and the dangerous rhetoric he continued to use, it seems a reasonable objection.

Twitter's third claim was also BS.There is literally zero "substantive" evidence to back up the claim that his refusal to go to former V.P. Biden's inauguration was a call to violence.

Again I seriously doubt they said it was, not in the sense you are suggesting. I think you are misrepresenting it, but please quote where it says that was solely the reason they closed president Trump's account.

They basically labelled the sitting U.S. President a terrorist based on nothing, and it was - and still is - disgusting.

You do remember the capitol riots? You do remember Trump repeatedly and dangerously lying that the there was evidence of mass voter fraud? I'd say the insurrection he directly caused that day was more disgusting that someone loser their Twitter account, you seem to have a very odd set of priorities.

Doesn't the fact that no violent acts were committed at the inauguration negate this claim - therefore proving Twitter wrong?

Quote the claim, as again I suspect you are grossly misrepresenting it.

Twitter's fourth claim was also BS.

So - basically - if anyone identified as an "American Patriot" - Twitter considered them to be terrorists.

They didn't remotely say that, so another pretty obvious straw man.

Twitter's fifth claim was also BS.

How does President Trump's claims about his supporters continuing to have a voice and to not be disrespected mean that he did not plan to facilitate an "orderly transition"?

He incited them to violence, encouraging them to "march on the Capitol building and fight like hell" to stop the legal transition of power. They have the same right to vote as everyone else, that was their voice, they don't get to use violence after the results don't go their way.

Shouldn't the fact that an "orderly transition" did take place negate Twitter's second and fifth BS claims?

Are you high? Armed security had to protect members of your government from an armed baying mob, they had to evacuate the main chamber, these images were beamed live around the world. have you can conception of how damaging that was to America's stature as voice for free elections and democracy around the globe?

Twitter's last claim was also BS.

Even if there were plans for a "secondary attack" - unless they can prove that President Trump was somehow involved with those plans - how can they blame him for them?

Shouldn't the fact that no such attack took place negate this claim - proving Twitter wrong?

Clearly they don't agree with your rather partisan views. I'm not going to even feign surprise at that.

Nothing about Twitter's explanation was "substantive".

I and more importantly they, disagree.

It's nice to know that you support Twitter banning whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Quote where I said that? Your histrionics is not helping your argument, you seem unable to examine this objectively, or even rationally.

That Christian/Muslim baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is glad to have your support.

What the Hell is a Christian/Muslim? Please do quote me anywhere offering support for anyone even remotely like this, you have clearly lost the plot.

That restaurant owner that refuses to serve Black people likes that you agree with their decision.

I imagine you think an an endless list of straw man fallacies is compelling argument, but as with so much else here you are very wrong. I'd also caution you against trolling.

That employer who would never give a raise to a woman is relieved to hear it.

What employer, what woman, relieved to hear what? Your disjointed rant is becoming more and more incomprehensible.

Oh sorry - I shouldn't use the word "woman" - since you don't know what that is.

Ad hominem, and pretty juvenile at that, you are simply painting yourself as irrational and unreasonable.

Being inconsistent, completely one-sided and having "rules for thee but not for me" has led to Twitter's comeuppance.

 

[pearl]

Hadn't we just gone through four years of an entire political party ranting on Twitter - claiming that the 2016 election was illegitimate, and that Trump was not "their" President?

I think the claim was not the illegitimacy of the election itself, but all the previous political grandstanding, the emails etc, add to that the very late interference from Comey.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I think the claim was not the illegitimacy of the election itself, but all the previous political grandstanding, the emails etc, add to that the very late interference from Comey.

No - they claimed that President Trump had "colluded" with the Russians to "steal" the election.

They said that for years and spent tens of millions of tax-payer dollars investigating it.

And all they ended up proving was that the DNC and Justice Department were colluding with foreign nationals to make it look like President Trump had colluded with Russia.

We all lived through it. You cannot convince me otherwise because it happened. I saw it happen.