The method in which he is handling it is wrong, I think. I get twitter, youtube, facebook, et. al. have their own rules and enforce them. The sites couldn't ex

The method in which he is handling it is wrong, I think. I get twitter, youtube, facebook, et. al. have their own rules and enforce them. The sites couldn't exist without the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Their rules arguably work for something like porn (which never seems to make it past youtube filters) and threats of violence. What makes less sense to me is the arbitrary method in which opinions based posts are handled. It becomes clearer when you see the newly (last 2 years) rules enforced when you realize it is advertising driving it all. If something rises to the level of impacting advertising, action is taken. They are censoring not to make political points; they cannot do that for threat of losing 320 protection. They do it to protect revenue, which as public companies they have to do.