And he's been obviously. And objectively deeply partisan outside of X. The OP's supposition that he'd be partisan on X in the run up to an election is a fair and reasonable one, independent of what Jack did.
You can no more run a social media website without moderation than you can run a nuclear reactor without a moderator.
A right leaning person might say, it is just to prevent people with means from receiving welfare. A left leaning person might say, means testing can leave gaps where some people are unserved.
The right leaning person says, "it is unjust to censor", the left leaning person says, "that system has a side effect -- if you are tolerant of hate speech, others will leave".
I don't know if this holds always, but now that it's pointed out, I see it in a lot of places.
What people don't want to admit to themselves is that censorship isn't always a bad thing. Realizing that requires a degree of nuance that the internet currently doesn't support.
And it's ok for you to not identify as cis. You get to have whatever identity you want.
We are discussing a platform that censors discussion when that discussion includes trans and not trans people. Unless you are X, the platform, I don't think your identity is germane. (And once again, you are valid.)
I do not know what your information diet is like, but if you would like help, I'm sure folks would be willing to talk and listen.
I can find you many, many cases that demonstrate your claim (only the left believes in censorship) is false.
Then how did he get elected in 2016 with a heavy social media presence and then continue using Twitter as his primary direct communication method as POTUS up until 2021?
(I selected that from google as an example of the term but it turns out to be quite a read, of stories from around and before WW2)
Manipulation of elections is OK as long as you do it with money.
It's really disheartening.
[1] https://daringfireball.net/2026/10/x_once_again_marks_the_sp...
This effect is self reinforcing, if you are leftish, and you are in a tightening space, why would you stay?
https://bsky.app/profile/antibot4navalny.bsky.social/post/3m...
So they do have some proof?
People who measure traffic to sites supposedly plagued by russian bots (the ones we care about here: trolls, disinformation, etc.) saw absolutely no dip in traffic
In that context it's pretty obvious "bots" are referring to disinformation or "troll" bots, not bots doing indexing/scraping.
So he has some proof? So the jury is still out, so this is controversial, right?
Uh? That's odd. In my country I don't vote because I don't feel represented and I encourage others in my situation to do the same. Would I get banned for saying that?
https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-integrity-...
(Australian compulsory voting: discuss)
But even in situations where someone would potentially want to vote and a tweet misleads them to believe it's not worth it, why is that worse then a tweet misleading them to believe that a certain political option will work in their favor?
More participation makes it harder to influence enough voters in a single direction to make a significant difference in outcomes.
And, at least in US politics, my experience is that most candidates do not stand on a single issue but rather a broad spectrum of political ideology. I think it would be pretty rare for all of the candidates to have no difference in alignment with you on any of the hundreds of issues at play. Especially if you are participating in primary elections which tend to have a greater diversity of positions.
Literally none of "them" represent any part of your position on what is typically a wide array of different issues? Not any of the state and local candidates? Not a single national candidate? You have no position, whatsoever, on local ballot issues?
That seems deeply myopic or extraordinarily unlikely.
"Listen to that guy" gets people listening and encourages at least the chance of someone going, "wait, actually I don't like what this guy is saying, what are other guys saying?"
I’ve heard this said by acquaintances before, but even when someone finally says what they want to hear they find another reason to not vote… without exception.
Whenever the topic shows up I always tell people to vote and that there’s no good reason to not vote if you legally can.
There’s a good reason not to vote: you have to go and vote. If I could vote from home, maybe.
If the younger generation becomes a sizeable voter demographic, then the politicians will notice. A new party might also show up to take those vote, giving them influence and negotiation power.
But for that to happen, the younger generation have to vote. That’s why I’m so adamant in discussions with acquaintainces that they need to vote and that the only valid reason to not vote is legality.
A standard drop of water is 0.05 ml. A standard household bucket is about 3 gallons. So the proverbial "drop in the bucket" is 0.0004%.
So, for all you naysayers out there saying this is just a drop in the bucket, it's literally x10 that.
Why, if they could get this up to a repeatable process and ban 13,000 accounts per day, that would be 1.5% every year. After a couple of years of work, that might even be perceptible to the average user. Sounds like the problem is well in hand.
Not sure why number of accounts matter at all, even more if you are depending on internal Twitter investigations to determine that without knowing any of the methodology to detect those, etc.
But sure, you can always defend Twitter if that's the hill you want to die on.
I think it's fair to assume that if x.com refuses to provide stats that are easily obtainable for them (eg. views or followers), that those stats aren't favorable to them.
The 0.004% richest Amreicans hold the majority of US wealth. I would not be surprised if the 0.004% top X users in terms of followers have a majority of followers as well.
So implying that because 0.004% is a small proportion of total users, this user ban is unconsequential seems flawed to me.
That is massively false. It’s closer to 5%. Still really bad IMO but 0.004% is a ludicrous thing to claim
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
Nah, it’s more like the top 5% hold half. The top 0.1% are at ~13%.