You seem really hung up on only one side being right or wrong. He was in the right. He then did something wrong. That doesn't justify what Twitter did, but it d

You seem really hung up on only one side being right or wrong. He was in the right. He then did something wrong. That doesn't justify what Twitter did, but it doesn't ingratiate me to his side either. Yes, I generally treat people with politeness and consider it a mistake when I let my emotions get the better of me. Perhaps not surprisingly, I've usually only had good experiences with most businesses when there have been mistakes, even mistakes I felt were egregious and should not have happened. That's not always the case, but in those cases that's the last business they usually get from me. When I say this guy is a supplicant, it's because he has no leverage to get what he wants. It's obvious Twitter doesn't care about him. The other stories in these threads make it obvious they don't care about most of their users or at least about fairness. That's what he's subjected himself to and this result shouldn't really be a surprise. I use HN and it's free to me. I could get banned.. I'd have some questions about my ban; but I also know dang to be pretty damn fair. I respect him and I think he respects others. There's no scenario where I'd talk to dang like this guy talked to Twitter. If dang acted like Twitter, I would either not be here, or I wouldn't be at all surprised when I was treated like I didn't matter.