> But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea

> But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots". I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots. I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this. And it's not just Twitter either[1]. > Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned? 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-...