zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published.

By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.

>>lykahb+T21
They fucked this up so badly.

They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it."

Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.

>>seph-r+P31
We'll, they're certainly escalating. I don't think that Trump actually wants to shut Twitter down, nor does he want to get banned there. The banning would rile up his base, but it would do so at the expense of his primary channel of communication. This action puts the ball back in Trump's court and asks him how far he wants to actually go.

>>hypers+781
let the white house spin up its own activitypub instance, then.

shouldn't public communications occur on public infrastructure?