On one platform. He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public

And that's precisely the danger of social media. If he must reach his following through a (relatively) neutral third party (the main-stream media) that third party can choose whether or not to pass that information on.

If he always and at all times has unfettered access to a rabid following, there is no moderation, no mediation, and we get our current situation.

Exactly. Censorship, which is done by the government, prevents speech on all platforms.

If a person cannot tweet they can still blog, newsletter, email, and even whisper their truth via their free speech to the next person all they like.

I'm going to stop you there.

Private companies can censor. Censorship isn't the sole domain of the government.

Twitter is censoring the President on its platform. As is their right to do so as Twitter is not the government. At least the last time I checked.

> He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants just like every other president has done when they need to communicate with the public

The media has regularly ignored presidential press conferences they didn't care about for decades now. Bush, Obama, and Trump all had many press conferences that received minimal coverage. In that light, it's no surprise that a President would seek our a more direct line of communication.

Recently I saw trump on tv at a press conference, the news anchors muted him and spoke over him.

> He still can pull up a press conference whenever he wants

Media can and has refused to publish his BS

Maybe he can install a radio in every home that can’t be turned off or down then?

> single corporation to be able to censor a president

People on a medium tend to overstate that media’s influence. Newspapers routinely refuse to print politicians’ op eds. Twitter is more pervasive, but it’s far from universal. As long as it’s not fiddled with around elections, de-platforming is fine.

The President does have certain abilities to commandeer media time, but that would require making an official address.

Why does an election make any difference? I think if you agree with censorship it should apply all the time.

Couldn't any TV network or newspaper or radio station choose what to publish or not for ... ever, really?

He could call a press conference right now and be on every news network.

Same thing that would happen if the owner of a restaurant asked the president to leave.

You make it sound like Twitter is the be all and end all of public discourse. Twitter isn't even in the top five. He could ramble on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or Snapchat before we even get down to Twitter.

>the inevitable Supreme Court hearing on this action

I'm curious what you've been reading or watching that led you to believe that's likely

He's not censored, he's not silenced and there are dozens of ways for him to send out messages, including:

- Press releases

- Holding a news conference

- For emergencies, IPAWS

Twitter not carrying his messages is akin to CNN choosing not to broadcast his rallies. It's not censorship.

God damn, I'd have this discussion any other day but not today.

The President is inciting violence by spreading dangerous misinformation and not condemning domestic terrorists.

Our sacred democratic institutions and world standing have taken a big hit. And, even worse - American lives were lost today due to this rhetoric.

We can't continue acting like this is a matter of hurr durr censorship anymore. It's time to move past idealism and into reality: people are in danger. Words have consequences.

We saw today what happens when people with immense power spout extremist ideology for years without consequence.

Let today's action by Twitter be part of the consequence. It's not censorship: it's consequence. Trump will not be arrested or chased for his rhetoric. He simply won't be able to spout it to the masses on a privately owned platform.

A life was lost today. There should be some consequence.

It is curious to me that the reaction to people rioting in a place of institutional, systemic power is much more negative than when people were rioting and damaging small businesses, homes, and killing regular people. That is, people seem to be reacting much more strongly to people rioting in a way that damages institutional power than when they were rioting in a way that damaged the powerless.

Do not speak of unintended consequences let the people enjoy short term win.