I think your comment that politicians "better conform to Twitter's code of conduct!" if they want to use Twitter is a perfect summary of the underlying philosop

I think your comment that politicians "better conform to Twitter's code of conduct!" if they want to use Twitter is a perfect summary of the underlying philosophy here. A system where you have bored teens posting alongside the POTUS, desirability aside, is very difficult to regulate. All this move amounts to is a statement that if you can't make your point without breaking the Twitter rules, it belongs somewhere other than Twitter. In my own opinion, it is hugely irresponsible for a business like Twitter to give politicians a platform in the first place. If this is a move away (*s/toward/away) from that, by hindering usefulness of Twitter as a campaign tool, I'm completely in favor of that. ps: TASC don't have any influence on which posts are considered rule-breaking, only on which are considered noteworthy enough to stay up. So they have no influence on "throttling" any tweets, only on saving ones which would otherwise be deleted.