I'm just thinking about this blog post I wrote in 2018. Because even when Twitter makes a good decision, the first sentence comes to mind: Why does the entire world have to wait on the CEO of one US company to make a decision?
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2018/03/twitter-is-not-a-public-utility/
@Gargron Ironically, the Trump ban is exactly what inspired me to look around on Mastodon again after a long time, even though I agree with the ban 100%.
@janssens_bart @Gargron #Twitter banned me (a small-time activist who exposes the harms of #CloudFlare). My posts were civil but CF is a powerful adversary. Banning someone who incites violence & pushes misinfo from a trusted posture (e.g. #Trump) is not a strong case against Twitter. And sadly, only relatively non-controversial bans get headlines b/c civil activists like myself aren't notworthy.
@Gargron @janssens_bart It's precisely the banning of low-profile activists that serve as strong rationale to leave twtr, as well as the substantial number of Indians that #Twitter marginalized not too long ago.
@Gargron @janssens_bart the ethical thing for #twitter to do is to acknowledge that it's not their place to control who gets to interact with politicians and refuse to serve all politicians who (mis)use Twitter as a public service. It's not the profitable move but it's the ethical one.
@resist1984 @Gargron Very good points, it is exactly because it was profitable that they allowed Trump to continue as long as he did.
@janssens_bart @Gargron As a state actor, #Trump has no place on #Twitter in the 1st place. Nor does #Biden or any other politician. We expect politicians to serve *the public*, not members of an exclusive walled garden that's centrally controlled by a private corporation who controls who among the /public/ may communicate to their representatives in /public/ office.