“I ignored when a national media outlet was banned for a publishing a true story that embarrassed a politician I and the US intelligence apparatus wanted to win… but no one complained about when I was suspended for 12 hours!”
The NY Post was banned for violating the hacked materials policy, and they were unbanned after Twitter changed the policy. It wasn't 12 hours, but it was pretty quick. Meanwhile plenty of other media outlets published embarassing details about the laptop contents on Twitter, and were not banned... because they didn't violate the hacked materials policy. If underlying goal was to suppress the story about the laptop and prevent embarassment, why didn't they also ban those accounts?
Also, what exactly is the rule you want in place re: banning by social media platforms? Do you have a principle behind your positions that you can articulate?
It was more than two weeks and every single bureaucrat, and “Intelligence” community statement that it was “Russian Disinformation” absolutely knew they were lying.
Sorry man, I don't know that. Can you offer any evidence - an email or something - that shows that the intelligence community knew it wasn't Russian disinformation at the time Twitter was deliberating over what to do with the NY Post?
Also, you didn't answer the question about principles. I'm still interested in that. I believe I have a rule about social media moderation that I've applied consistently across a wide variety of circumstances. Can you say the same?
Edited to add: And again, if the intelligence community was trying to pick a winner, why didn't they try to ban all the other stories about the laptop? And why only on Twitter? The NY Post was still going strong on Facebook, right?
