It feels like Twitter the company should be imploding, but it must be a secure business if its the next president's primary communication channel.
But the president of the United States speaks with the executive authority for an entire nation. It's questionable enough when a company's stock falls because Trump lashes out at them, and means it [0]. But what about the times he makes a typo, or just doesn't have all the info he needs at that moment when his emotions arise? Even asking that he types something to be sent through a Wordpress-powered system would give him the same megaphone, but adding a little more friction so that things that deserved to be trashed/called-out in his voice actually deserve so.
For those who say this amounts to making Trump less "real" of a man...sure. But he's no longer just a man, he's the chief executive of the world's greatest power. He gave up the privilege of "just sayin what I think" for the privilege of being able to unilaterally launch a nuclear war. Keep in mind that there are no checks and balances against this power -- it is utterly unilateral: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-...
Giving up frictionless communication in 140-character-sized comments seems like a reasonable thing to pass on, given the many extra responsibilities he has, and the extra weight each of his words have.
[0] http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-threaten...
For one thing, Obama's personal account (i.e. not @POTUS, but @BarackObama) explicitly says in its profile: "This account is run by Organizing for Action staff. Tweets from the President are signed -bo. [0]
No such disclaimer has been made about Trump's account, which tweets with the same characteristics and tone as it did well before his current presidential campaign [1]. You're right, though, that Trump's team does tweet for him on occasion. Either that, or Trump, who is famously not a computer user, has mastered the art of using two different mobile operating systems [2]
The share prices of the companies Trump has bashed have rebounded within the same day, so this is incredibly misleading to say.
Not that I disagree with the core point of your post.
Trump enjoys being treated like royalty. I doubt he has loyalty to Twitter and would jump ship to another company that puts him on a pedestal. He would enjoy seeing the millions of customers who follow him.
What other company offers a similar broadcast style approach for text content and doesn't require real name registration?
Really though, Trump would fit right in on 4chan.
Regardless, the company doesn't have to exist today. Someone could be working on creating the new company, as we type.
The word reportedly is really interesting. Was this reported by the same media that was wrong about just about everything this election cycle? Could they somehow be wrong about this too?
PS: Twitter is smaller than the other companies and is perceived as a failing (or at best stagnant) company. While Twitter is an important company online, if you were inviting the biggest companies in tech, there's some logic to not inviting them to that conference.
My guess is Peter vetoed Twitter, for sensible reasons.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-executives-smoke-t...
That's unfair to say. Trump's own Director of Digital Advertising explained[0] how Trump's campaign signed deals with Twitter, which Twitter didn't honor, without offering a refund.
Sources connected to Trump[1] say he's considering an anti-trust investigation on them because of their role in this election, which includes censoring pro-Sanders and pro-Trump hashtags, and biased censorship of people like Milo.
[0]: https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump-eb7e48c... [1]: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/798765870172368896