What kind of idiotic crap is this? Twitter is a private company, they can control what is on their site in any way they see fit. Shadow banning, while potentially destructive to the reputation of the company, is in no way illegal.

We have a moron for President.

That said, Trump has gotten a free pass countless times on violating Twitter's TOS so if anyone actually deserves a shadowban...

> Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.

See Abusive Behavior; You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.

See Violence and physical harm; You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people.

See Threats to expose / hack; You may not threaten to expose someone’s private information or intimate media. You also may not threaten to hack or break into someone’s digital information.

- Are you saying that Trump threatening the North Korean leadership is a ToS violation?

- Would you say that Obama threatening the Syrian leadership is a ToS violation?

I like Obama a hell of a lot more than Trump but if you're going to ban military leaders (which includes most heads of state) you have to do it consistently to avoid accusations of bias.

If Twitter believe a military leader stating consequences to a foreign regime, or a law officer lawfully stating consequences of breaking the law consistitutes a threat against a group of people, they need to ban all military and police from the platform.

Alternatively, they could state that conducting lawful military and police work, which includes stating the possibility of a response to an action, is not considered a threat. Or that a 'government' or 'people who have broken the law' are not a protected group.

Examining how people would handle Obama acting as Commander in Chief on Twitter is a great way to determine whether they're against threats by military leaders or simply against Trump.

No, he didn't. Aside from anything else, the “Commander in Chief” role is solely commanding the military under the laws prescribed by Congress. Public diplomatic threats (even threats that, were they carried through, would involve acting in the C-in-C role) are not part of that role.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should heed U.S. warnings to neither use nor move chemical or biological weapons, lest he risk crossing a "red line" and provoke a U.S. military response, President Barack Obama said Monday.

"Threatening to nuke someone is a 'violent threat,' no?"