But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office. You could argue that they should have booted him sooner, after a few warnings and repeated violations. And they can argue that they gave him, and other political figures, extra leeway due to their public positions and their newsworthiness. But at the end of the day he was repeatedly given special treatment that most of us would never get on any of the platforms he was banned from.
If there was anything nefarious going on it was Twitter, FB, etc. looking the other way because they knew that his violations of their terms was attracting attention and therefore making them money.
> But he did violate their terms of service over and over while in office.
One of the primary issues is that Twitter has routinely granted privileged protected status to their favored political side, and refused to ban prominent people on the left that have behaved dramatically in violation of their policies [1][2]. There were a huge number of examples of it from the left during the unhinged Nick Sandermann cultural conflict for example (a wave of direct calls for violence by blue checkmarks against underage children).
Twitter has no qualms with unevenly applying their policies, so long as they're helping their political side. That has particularly been going on for four or five years non-stop at this point.
I certainly don't doubt there are plenty of other examples and I don't have any love for Twitter or any other SM platform these days.
But as far as I could see, only seeing the former president's tweets in the news because I'm not a Twitter user, he was also granted protected status. So I fail to see it as some leftist conspiracy and find it more likely that Twitter just allows users that attract more attention this privileged status because it's in their best interest to do so.
Honestly, I don't know who Nick Sandermann is and could not care less about what Jane Fonda and Spike Lee are up to on Twitter. You've just pointed out some great examples of why I left it behind a long time ago.
However, as a US citizen, I do care what my president gets up to, even on social media. Given it's outsized influence on our society these days, I'm probably more interested in what the president is saying on social media, where he, and every other politician, seem to be able to get away with saying things they'd never have said on mainstream television or on traditional media not that long ago.
What a pile of nonsense. Now I'm not an American and have no stake beyond not wanting your country to burn because it's bad for the world... but come on? Have you ever seen another president treated that way? Maybe Nixon? Imagine if he was on twitter when in office. Extra leeway lolololol. You must be a reporter or a FAANG employee with options?
I seriously doubt that former president Richard Nixon would have ever been on Twitter behaving the way our 45th president did. From what I saw the only way he was treated was to get a pass on violation after violation of Twitter's TOS.
I've yet to see any other president ever behave that way on any social media platform so I have no point of reference to either dispute or agree with what you're saying.
And no, I'm not a reporter or an employee of a tech company, please keep your inferences about my character out of the conversation.
I agree, though, that it does sometimes sound like it's being hinted that something more nefarious was happening when people talk about it like this.