The word reportedly is really interesting. Was this reported by the same media that was wrong about just about everything this election cycle? Could they somehow be wrong about this too?
PS: Twitter is smaller than the other companies and is perceived as a failing (or at best stagnant) company. While Twitter is an important company online, if you were inviting the biggest companies in tech, there's some logic to not inviting them to that conference.
My guess is Peter vetoed Twitter, for sensible reasons.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-executives-smoke-t...
That's unfair to say. Trump's own Director of Digital Advertising explained[0] how Trump's campaign signed deals with Twitter, which Twitter didn't honor, without offering a refund.
Sources connected to Trump[1] say he's considering an anti-trust investigation on them because of their role in this election, which includes censoring pro-Sanders and pro-Trump hashtags, and biased censorship of people like Milo.
[0]: https://medium.com/@garycoby/twitter-restricts-trump-eb7e48c... [1]: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/798765870172368896
What other company offers a similar broadcast style approach for text content and doesn't require real name registration?
Really though, Trump would fit right in on 4chan.
Regardless, the company doesn't have to exist today. Someone could be working on creating the new company, as we type.
Trump enjoys being treated like royalty. I doubt he has loyalty to Twitter and would jump ship to another company that puts him on a pedestal. He would enjoy seeing the millions of customers who follow him.