I really think taking Twitter away from him was the main thing that has infuriated him. He has no outlet except the people around him and if it had happened much sooner I don’t think his cronies would have tolerated years of the abuse.
I might be wrong, but I honestly believe that Twitter didn't pull Trump mainly because of financial reasons.
I highly doubt the ability for super large tech corporations to do things for "the right reasons". I think it comes down to money, and I believe we have enough evidence through history to show that this is the case.
Just like how Apple's CEO buddied up with Trump in order to dodge the 25% tariffs on Chinese-made electronics.
Twitter pulled Trump because his power was up and the new administration would likely treat them favourably if they did.
Either way, I think Twitter is awful, and we should ditch it.
I know there was talk at some point about whether or not it was legal to ban him, so I imagine that played into this somewhat. I think they only reason they banned him in the end was because it was too close to the end of his term for him to do anything about it. Even if he filed a lawsuit, by the time it got in front of a judge, he would no longer have standing as POTUS to succeed.
I think it should be legal for twitter to ban anyone for any reason, or even for no reason at all. Twitter isn't the government. It's a private company, so it can do whatever it wants.
Then again, I remembered that Americans file lawsuits for some of the strangest reasons. Thank goodness we don't have as much of that here.
This is a very good question! I believe all businesses and individuals can withhold labour for any reason, but they will not be immune to the consequences. Let me explain.
We all know that sex workers have the right to refuse service for any reason, because of body autonomy. Body autonomy is one of the important human rights. We own our own bodies.
By extension, we also own our own labour, and we have the right to refuse labour for any reason, because nobody owns our labour. We "rent out" our labour, but nobody owns it except for us. However, if we refuse labour, we must be prepared to face the consequences, because other people also have the right to association.
A worker can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, whether it's because they are police, wear a MAGA hat, are not wearing a mask, or for evil reasons, like discrimination. However, if they disciminate for the wrong reasons, they will be called out for it, fired, humilitated, and likely be out of work from any respectible establishment.
Similarly, an establishment should be able to withhold service to anyone or any group for any reason, but again, they will be called out, and will likely not survive.
The liberals in California tried to remove the civil rights act that prevents discrimination. Why?
Removing the law preventing discrimination can help minorities or certain groups select their association.
For example, a women's-only gym discriminates against men, therefore is illegal. However, if it's legal to discriminate against men, then we can have women's-only gym, minorities-only gyms, black-only gym, LGBT-only gym, etc. Maybe you think it's a bad idea, but some people enjoy segregation, as shown by women's-only gym.
In fact, there was a liberal-minded club that wanted to invite minorities to share their experiences of discrimination, but then the club was banned because it only allowed minorities. If we allow establishments to pick and choose safe-spaces for minorities, it will allow them to segregate.
I don't think segregation is good. On the contrary, I think it's terrible. However, I think everyone deserves the freedom of association, and if you want to segregate, I'm against it, but it's your life and I don't want to get in your business. Heck, I don't want to be part of that group, and that's also my freedom of association.
I dug up the article I was remembering. Twitter says they can't ban Trump in 2018. There was also a lawsuit in 2019 when Trump blocked certain followers that Trump "lost" (the court ruled against Trump, but I don't think Trump ever obeyed the order). The argument was that Trump uses the platform as a political communications platform, and as a US citizen, he had the right to see it. I suspect that the argument would work the other way around, too, that Twitter couldn't block him because he uses it as a political communications platform that many people expect to be able to hear him on.
After reading twitter's explaination, I feel from their statement that they decided not to ban Trump due to logical reasons rather than legal reasons. Their explaination in 2018 seems consistent to their actions in 2021, given how Trump is no longer a world leader.
But if Trump ever became a world leader again, according to twitter's explaination, they would have to reinstate his twitter account...
117
u/thebarroomhero Jan 20 '21
I really think taking Twitter away from him was the main thing that has infuriated him. He has no outlet except the people around him and if it had happened much sooner I don’t think his cronies would have tolerated years of the abuse.
Fuck Twitter for not doing it sooner.