4 ms·

> He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side. I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here.

> He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side. I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. That's a pretty significant lever to have over POTUS. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

omarchowdhury 6y ago
> Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. The threat would be a criminal offense.
- geomark 6y ago
  Threatening to deplatform is a criminal offense? What a world we live in.
  - omarchowdhury 6y ago
    No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense. > where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something
    - salawat 6y ago
      Out of curiosity, what do you think makes it illegal: the coercive aspect, or that it's aimed at POTUS?
      - omarchowdhury 6y ago
        Both. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-610.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
alisonkisk 6y ago
In that case, the President will hold a press conference and ger coverage from every TV and YouTubel Channel and Facebook page, not to mention tens of thousands of Twitter users.
daniellarusso 6y ago
I am pretty sure Dorsey could just impersonate the account and post or remove whatever. No need for threats.