Clinton campaign did not do the same thing. All they did was elephant and donkey for the conventions. Looks like it the rights victim complex again.
The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side never intended to do exactly the same, and for good measure, the CEO promised that if they did, they would be prevented from doing so, too.
You are now making the claim that, if side X exhibits behavior A, and opposing side Y exhibits behavior B, it is no longer legitimate to compare behaviors A and B - whatever the behaviors are, they are exactly the same simply because they're held by opposing sides.
The other side wanted a custom icon. They got it. The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question "did twitter censor political views not shared by the CEO?" The answer is "yes", regardless of the content of the icon granted to the other side.
They were allowed other hashtags that didn't have the same negative "attack ad" approach so it doesn't look like politically motivated bias so much as them just not wanting to promote negative attack ads on their platform.
You can call it censorship. That's fair. But it's unfair to call it bias or politically motivated censorship.
It absolutely, most certainly is not. The content is quite vital to the decision.
If the Clinton campaign ran an ad that was targeting Trump in a similarly negative way and Twitter allowed that, then it would be bias.
But so far I haven't seen that counterexample.
By your logic, taking down a post of someone being doxxed is also censorship.
"No attack ads" isn't the same thing as "no anti-Hillary attack ads". If you can cite the Hillary campaign getting a custom emoji for an anti-Trump hashtag, do so.
Irrelevant. Twitter denied them a custom icon whereas allowed their opposition to have one. The content of the icon has no bearing on the matter. It's censorship. That is twitter's choice but it is still censorship, based on the CEO's politics.
This is NOT TRUE.
Click the article. Look at the screenshot. It clearly shows the Republican National Convention was afforded a custom emoji.
You've fallen for some propaganda.
Maybe it is. It is still censorship. And it is based on the political opinion of the CEO.
If they apply the same approach to different political campaigns it doesn't seem politically motivated to me.