Twitter bans sharing images/videos of private individuals without their consent

I think they did try, but ultimately any centralizing web service cannot succeed in this. For one, they need to follow government censorship laws (presumably what you mean by "extent they could"). But even deeper, their intrinsic profit motive destroys free speech through both negative distortions ("don't upset the sponsors") and positive ones ("drive engagement"). The effects of the latter are slower to take hold (eg online flash mobs rallying around centrally-promoted content). But once they do the company ends up stuck between a rock and a hard place - either hurt their core product by removing its centralizing features, or attempt to mitigate the ill effects through increasingly invasive policies.

The narrative I'm pushing is one of transparency. There is no "clear compliance" with this rule because it is deliberately vague and open to the interpretation of Twitter censors - and that is the problem. As written it very clearly delegates the power to Twitter moderators to pick and choose what raw images and videos people will be allowed to see based on no specific metrics at all. The clear fact is that the powers-that-be have lost control over the narrative and desperately want to return to the age when everyone got the same, curated message from ABC, CBS and NBC. From the Bay of Tonkin to WMD to Russiagate, more disinformation and lies has been distributed by the government and the corporate media than all the Qanon shamans and 4Chan basement dwellers combined. These are the people who now claim that they need to impose mass censorship across all major platforms to combat, "disinformation".

Just watch. This will see very inconsistent selective enforcement.

That will be rightfully objected to.

As worded, one cannot show almost all images including people other than the author of said image.

Gab is great, under the radar it has been flying along and getting better and better. It has Milo and other banned characters that are worth the price of admission. It is surprisingly not toxic and not virtuous. Any off topic groups like meat eaters or homesteading or parenting etc are really good. For politics and realted things it definitely has a bent, but I'm ok with that. Eventually the left will get bored of their own creations and slowly spread out. A legit app store app would make it a legit competitor.

There are so many banned people. Paul Sperry. Alex Jones. Milo. Vox Day. Any one of these is worth joining for.

Meanwhile, a disgruntled staffer likely stole DNC "stuff" and maybe fed it to WikiLeaks. The DNC knew. In order to combat this knowing it would drop as an October surprise, they made a fake hacking claim up and blamed it on the Russians.

Confused? Hilary colluded with Russians while blaming Russians and Trump? Yep. And the emails are important because they would have shown the same level of corruption seen in hunter Biden's emails.

Hunter Biden's laptop was soaked with liquid while hunter was doing drugs. He took it to be repaired and never picked it up. The repair shop was owed compensation, and eventually the laptop became that compensation. Legally. In order to counter the heat about Joe Biden and Hunter Bidens shady business dealing in Ukraine, they accused their opponents of shady dealing in the Ukraine. This was the impeachment scandal that revolved around Colonel Vindmans "whistleblower" complaint. They tainted the waters so greatly with politics that there was no way to wade through the mess and hold Hunter or Joe to account. They accused Trump of their corruption in Ukraine.

The playbook is accuse your opponents of your crimes.