There are a few parts to your question. Can I find anything salvageable in the flagged statements that he made on Twitter? Definitely not, I’m pissed off we elected someone who thinks it’s OK to say things like that in public. I think Colbert said it best: Trump doing those things puts an eternal stain on the Office of Presidency; now among the things Presidents of the US have done, being subjected to Internet moderation is one of them. This was unimaginable merely a decade ago. Trump forced Twitter’s hand here, but now we live in a world where that precedent exists.

Am I excited that We the People are delegating the decisions what speech to amplify or not to fickle private companies? It’s hard for me to get behind that. Something just feels very wrong about this idea.

These companies are as important as we consider them to be.

And just a few reminders: 1. His messages are still visible. 2. Even if they were not, he could still deliver his message in a thousand different ways, I mean he's constantly over the phone with Fox'n'Friends.

Since America exists, you've always had people commenting and criticizing what elected officials are doing and saying. Do you want to shut twitter's right to free speech? Do you realize that you are taking a position of: "A member of government should not be questioned by a private party". Do you realized how fearful people who disagrees with you can be by hearing this argument?

The guy is literally going for a power grab. "Stand up and stand by"... I really think that those who are worried about democracy because of what Twitter is doing are focusing on the wrong thing here. And to be honest, I find it harder and harder to believe they do it in good faith... That is what I am worried about.

We treat large companies differently from small ones all the time (antitrust, too big to fail, etc.), so I don’t see imposing extra restrictions on something where so much public discourse is happening as too extreme. If it causes smaller competitors to spring up, so much the better.

Realize that I’m not arguing that Twitter should be compelled to never flag anything. Just if they do maybe there needs to be a consistent set of laws with due process to appeal the decisions.

Here’s a thought experiment: what if say China were to acquire a majority stake in Twitter and downright forbid any disagreeable statement about Taiwan? The fact that this sale would probably not be allowed in the first place for national security reasons should give another hint that something about Twitter is unusual.

As for arguing in good faith, when do you think is a good time to have this conversation? It’s great that it worked out for good this time. Sure, let’s wait until he’s safely out of office first. But I think that’s exactly the time to think through this carefully, and not when it’s too late and these powers are used against something you agree with. History is full of examples of failing to think through long term consequences while focussing on the imminent danger.

The president is human and a civilian just like the rest of us shlubs. Don't forget that.

I don't know what you mean by "civilian." In my life, that typically means "not in the military."

But being President of the US makes one the Commander in Chief. That's the highest military position we have in this country.

Don't take my word for it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...

Not only this, but the offices of the SECDEF and secretaries of each service branch are also led by civilians, to which the JCS report. There are strict limits to the number of positions in those offices that can be filled by uniformed officers.

Thank you. That was informative.

I remain confused as to why you worded your remark the way you did. And that was my real point, which I feel like I didn't make clear.

You're welcome, sorry if I came across strangely.

It's just that I think people forget that the office of the President, while important, is a civilian executive position. It is unlike Chief Justice, or a 3* General, which require lifetime commitments to achieve.

I believe it was intentional that the office of the President to be public and administrative, more like that of a mayor than of a king.

And that's what we shouldn't lose sight of.

I looked up shlub and the internet told me it means talentless, unattractive or boorish person.

I fundamentally cannot agree with your seeming dismissal of his responsibility to comport himself a certain way in public while he holds office.

Oh!

Well I agree with you there about the office demanding a certain level of, uh, Presidentialness. Whether on social media or not.

I was just being hyperbolic about your typical blue-check twitter user coupled with a (possibly unhealthy) sprinkling of self-deprecation.

Ah. I see.

Self deprecating humor is fraught with problems under the best of circumstances. (It's a bad habit I'm trying to break for myself.)

Thanks for clarifying everything so nicely. It's been nice talking with you.