4 ms·

Jack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This i

by mnd999 6y ago

Jack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This is not a new idea.

jdsully 6y ago
Jack only owns 2% of twitter, further Twitter is a public company. We subject public companies to higher standards than closely held ones because ownership is broad and diluted.
dcolkitt 6y ago
But he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.
- ben_w 6y ago
  We don’t get to see the world where he didn’t do that. For example, let’s pretend his lawyers warned him that TWTR as a company and himself as an individual could be held liable for any future riot organised on Twitter. That would be worse than 6.5%, surely?
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    Between 8 PM Friday and 4 AM Monday morning, nothing about potential legal liability changed. The decline over the weekend TWTR banned Trump was larger than the decline following the riot itself.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      1. We don’t know what advice they were getting and when, and it’s the advice not the liability that matters. 2. This is just an example of things which could be going on, not intended as a factual statement of what did and why Twitter chose to do what it chose to do — if I actually knew something not in the public domain, I’d probably be under NDA to not say.
      - dcolkitt 6y ago
        You think a $40 billion stock moved 6% in a day based on non-public internal discussions among executives and lawyers? If so, that would constitute one of the most blatant cases of insider trading in modern history.
        ben_w 6y ago
        That’s not what I was saying. I’m suggesting the beliefs of the Twitter board of directors may have changed due to non-public discussions, causing them to ban Trump despite the foreseeable negative impact on their bottom line, as that would be a less-bad alternative to the consequences of not doing so. I don’t see why this is a controversial claim for me to make given that (1) they did, in fact, ban Trump’s account, and (2) people have been pointing at Trump’s violations the TOS for years already, so Twitter probably previously had non-public grounds for not banning him, grounds which are no longer sufficient. (Point 2 is weaker than point 1, point 1 is basically incontrovertible).
- mnd999 6y ago
  Twitter is still up significantly from just one year ago. Investors expect the odd blip, and this isn't the only one in the last 6 months. Long term they've done well, so they're happy. They're not going to start asking questions unless this turns into a long-term downward trend.

by mnd999 6y ago

Jack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This is not a new idea.

jdsully 6y ago

Jack only owns 2% of twitter, further Twitter is a public company. We subject public companies to higher standards than closely held ones because ownership is broad and diluted.

dcolkitt 6y ago

But he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.

ben_w 6y ago
We don’t get to see the world where he didn’t do that. For example, let’s pretend his lawyers warned him that TWTR as a company and himself as an individual could be held liable for any future riot organised on Twitter. That would be worse than 6.5%, surely?
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Between 8 PM Friday and 4 AM Monday morning, nothing about potential legal liability changed. The decline over the weekend TWTR banned Trump was larger than the decline following the riot itself.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    1. We don’t know what advice they were getting and when, and it’s the advice not the liability that matters. 2. This is just an example of things which could be going on, not intended as a factual statement of what did and why Twitter chose to do what it chose to do — if I actually knew something not in the public domain, I’d probably be under NDA to not say.
    - dcolkitt 6y ago
      You think a $40 billion stock moved 6% in a day based on non-public internal discussions among executives and lawyers? If so, that would constitute one of the most blatant cases of insider trading in modern history.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        That’s not what I was saying. I’m suggesting the beliefs of the Twitter board of directors may have changed due to non-public discussions, causing them to ban Trump despite the foreseeable negative impact on their bottom line, as that would be a less-bad alternative to the consequences of not doing so. I don’t see why this is a controversial claim for me to make given that (1) they did, in fact, ban Trump’s account, and (2) people have been pointing at Trump’s violations the TOS for years already, so Twitter probably previously had non-public grounds for not banning him, grounds which are no longer sufficient. (Point 2 is weaker than point 1, point 1 is basically incontrovertible).
mnd999 6y ago
Twitter is still up significantly from just one year ago. Investors expect the odd blip, and this isn't the only one in the last 6 months. Long term they've done well, so they're happy. They're not going to start asking questions unless this turns into a long-term downward trend.