No it isn't. I'm quite sure you know it isn't.

Being _unable_ to censor the president is what would be anti-democratic. Only in authoritarian regimes would a leader be able to force private companies to spread their message.

In a democratic country, you have the freedom to choose what you want to support and not support.

Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposing ideas.

There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Trump can say what he wants, but Twitter absolutely has a choice what, if anything, they allow to be published on their platform.

FWIW, Trump's time on Twitter is winding down. The only reason he hasn't received the ban-hammer from Twitter is his unique position as an elected official. January 20th shortly after noon, he will no longer exist on Twitter.

> There is no democracy on a privately owned platform.

Interesting. Would the right-wing be better off if Twitter were a government-owned entity, thus ensuring that their right to free speech would always allow unfettered access? Would we ever be able to convince them to trust the government enough that that was actually the case? Would they be able to overcome their impulse in favor of privatization over nationalization to allow something like that to happen?

> There is no democracy on a privately owned platform.

So, do you support net neutrality?

It's the ISP's platform, they can do what they want with it... right?

A warning is not censorship.

So is telling the public that there was massive fraud in all the states you lost and refusing to admit defeat!