Thread by @SamRochadotcom

A THREAD ON TRUMP’S BANNED TWITTER ACCOUNT

The President of the United States is in sole possession of the largest and loudest media platform in the world, but it is not @Twitter.

His office can call a press conference or release a memorandum and every journalistic outlet in the world must cover it.

Despite the fact that Trump has the biggest platform in world politics, he is obviously scared and reluctant to use it because it comes with moral responsibility and rational scrutiny which he is incapable of bearing.

He is free at anytime to resume making regular use of his Office for as long as he occupies it.

Anyone saying that his speech is limited must be able to explain how that could possibly be the case. This would be like saying that someone who lives in a cafeteria and is permitted to eat anything there is being starved to death. It is absurd.

Add to that the plain and obvious fact that Twitter has taken action very slowly with a repeated series of light censers and warnings which were ignored and even defied.

Any private company who establishes legal rules and proceeds to follow them through a series of steps, without escalating all at once until the final measure is taken, out of caution for its own liability and reputation, is manifestly not doing anything unjust or unprecedented.

This is absolutely routine. So if you suddenly want to nationalize Twitter and Facebook because of this, then, you are not thinking straight.

Trump has full power to use his public office and platform, but that does not entail being allowed to nationalize private platforms for his office’s public use.

Mind you, Trump not only violated Twitter’s rules and got himself banned, he returned after he was banned through alt accounts and had to be disciplined and monitored like a misbehaving child.

This situation is one in which a childish person possesses the exact thing they want to have with minimal but real oversight and refuses to use it, so they instead use something else and, when they refuse to abide by its use policy, find themselves empty handed...

... and, even then, *still tries to use it* after being disciplined which then requires additional discipline.

This is, plain and simple, a temper tantrum by a man child who has finally faced real consequences and doesn’t like it, who refuses to use the real power he actually has because it also comes with consequential responsibility.

My remarks in this thread leave out many things, like the moral responsibility for what happened on January 6, but the bar is so low one can easily show the absurdity of opposition to this decision without making any appeal to it.

The arguments are low-hanging and easy to bat out of the park. We should forcefully reply to them and make those who stand by them answer to these reasons and refute them with their own. Standing by.

We will see how devoted to free speech and rational discourse they really are. My guess is I will just hear more crickets chirping.

Three final words: Colin Rand Kaepernick.