3 ms·

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

• 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).