Try rereading twitters ban post: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
He got banned for tweets that require reading with an extra crinkly tin foil hat on to get "tried to overthrow the government".
Yes, they would have done better. Their business should be providing the platform, not telling the users that is 'true' and what is not. That everyone should decide for themselves.
One thing is fighting spam, but what they were doing was Ministry of Truth stuff. And harm from that might be thousandfold greater than whatever Trump could ever do.
That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be doing whatever they think will generate the most long term profit for the owners. It's an advertising platform. Advertisers don't want a platform where users get to decide what the truth is. Advertisers don't want their advertisement next to some anti-vaxxer nutjob or a vocal racist. This is common sense.
Now, advertisers come from different parts of the political spectrum, and if some advertiser would decide to vacate their spot on the platform, some other business would fill the spot.
You know, earlier this year a lot of western companies have quit the russian market, like Macdonalds. Do you think there are no burgers in Russia now?
Yes, their paid users being the advertisers. The end "users" are the product.
> Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform
Can you please give a source for your engagement figures?
> banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.
Again, please provide a source for this. Evidence of this could be grounds for a class action suit on the part of share holders.
For exact figures you might ask Elon himself.
I didn't claim anything. I asked for your sources. You are the one who made a claim. And now you're acting astounded that someone would dare question your claim.
Truth Social can't seem to become profitable [1]. So Trump's ability to produce (or drive away) advertising revenue is certainly open to being questioned.
> For exact figures you might ask Elon himself.
Elon didn't make the claim. You did.
> If so, I resign
If you can't back up your claims with a source, then yes, it's right of you to resign.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch
Demanding to provide data that is clearly not publicly available is pure demagoguery, as this figure is irrelevant for our discussion: it does not matter if ad revenue from user engagement created by Trump was XXXXX USD or YYYYYY USD, as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero. So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform.
Likewise, the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here. It is another demagogue technique called 'straw man', as you try to bait your opponent into arguing about a completely different social platform.
Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.
You claimed to know such data. It's clear you haven't been debating in good faith from the point you made that claim.
> as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero.
No it's not. I provided evidence that he may in fact drive away advertisers.
> So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform.
That's not how it works. Blocking someone who provides a small amount of advertising revenue but who drives away other users would be in the best interest of the platform. Blocking someone who the moderators believe will incite violence is in the best commercial interests of the platform.
> the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here
It's entirely relevant because Trump invested in that platform and spends most of his time there. If they can't make a profit it puts your claim about his ability to attract advertisers in doubt.
> Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.
I never claimed victory. I simply asked you to back up your claims and you got yourself into a panic over that and threatened to quit. Ok. Bye.
Can you please give a link to the message where I claimed to know such data?
> Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.
You either have those engagement numbers or you don't. Which is it?
You either know how much advertising revenue he generated -or- how much he drove away. Or you don't.
You either have evidence that banning him was against their business interests or you are just guessing. I don't think you have those numbers. You suggested Elon Musk might have those numbers. So it's pretty clear you yourself don't have the internal business numbers that would be used to make those decisions.
Lacking sources to back up your claims, then you were arguing in bad faith. But I'm open minded. Feel free to back up that claim with actual evidence.
Cute copying me with "panic mode". I appreciate the imitation.
Didn't you resign a few comments ago? Or was that another false claim?
So Twitter moderators accurately predicted Trump's words could eventually end in violence long before it happened?