The headline is misleading. The "statement" is a Twitter thread, and it doesn't say anything about banning or not banning everybody. The body of the article concedes that it only "heavily implies" they'll never ban him. And that was three years ago. Some stuff has happened since then.

Even Jack Dorsey's account was suspended in 2016 mistakenly.

As was Donald Trump's in 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/02...

Maybe. But there's probably a business model out there this is simply a Twitter clone that waits for the Trump account to move there, and bang, instant success.

There is and they (Gab) get an okay number of likes on every one of his posts promoting it. [0] Also Facebook is now well positioned to be his next platform if he moves off twitter.

0. https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1266347307391488002

Trump isn't moving to Facebook, regardless of Zuck's attempt to pandering to his childish outbursts. Twitter is precisely suited to Trump's micro-tantrum thoughts, where Facebook is orthogonal. I would argue that the brevity of Twitter, and the adversarial nature of it, made Trump and the imbecile-right (e.g. not conservative -- it's a bunch of flag wavers who have close to zero political lean of knowledge...they just want to hate).

P.S. I know this comment is auto-dead, and that's okay.

Out of all the social networks, isn't Facebook the one that has the most Trump supporters? Twitter is notorious for being full of the woke left. Most people only find out about Trump's tweets because they get reported somewhere. Facebook is nowadays the preserve of older moms and pops.

Or mastadon! Whitehouse could have its own server, and would not need to worry about sensorship

Since Twitter and Trump seem intent on getting into a pissing match (Trump a bit more so), what's the worst each side could do?

Twitter could block him and Trump could continue to sell out America to foreign interests.