@Csar: I totally agree with you, Trump will be incredibly angry about this. For probably the first time in his live, his bad actions led to serious consequences. To somebody not using Twitter or social media much, this might not seem that important, but being a media personality was the only thing Trump ever had any success in (He never was a successful businessman). Trump made his wealth by inheritance, tax evasion/fraud, and, in the last two decades or so, as a reality-TV personality. There his act was the strong and tough boss and businessman and his erratic behaviour was what brought him the audience rating.
He did pretty much the same in his presidency, building what can only be described as a personality cult around him. And now, his media outlet was taken away from him.
Sure, it is relatively easy to move to another platform, but he will never be able to rebuild the outreach he had on Twitter.
Glorified AOL chatroom it may be, but official accounts of elected officials should probably be held to higher standards.
Also, I'm anything but a free speech or American law expert, but aren't Twitter, Facebook etc. privately owned companies, and, as such, they can choose whichever content to allow or block?
Is the free speech/censorship argument applicable here?
@Bosco: yeah, it would be bad if Trump were the only one to face consequences now. Too many on all levels and branches of gouvernment fully endorsed or simply ignored Trumps actions. It would send a terrible signal if they could just continue their jobs as if nothing has happened.
I do think any consequences for Trumps supporters and enablers should be more political, that blocking their social media won't do much now that the central figure is gone there.
