There are maybe 1-2 reports of Weinstein using actual force for rape.

For the other 2000 or more women, it was exactly what you say, he asked, and they had to say yes (to get anywhere)

There are eighteen separate allegations of rape (separate from coerced “consent”)

What a weird thing to try to nitpick. There are plenty of shakier instances of takedowns by Me Too. Weinstein isn’t one of them and they’re not “the entire reason” for the movement.

What are you even on about in terms of this discussion?

Are you saying the metoo movement was about physical aggressive rape of women?

Because it’s not. It’s about those in power exploiting their power for sex. And how is that done? Mostly by soft power, which you can’t say no to. Which is the whole premise of the parent comment.

> Mostly by soft power, which you can’t say no to. Which is the whole premise of the parent comment.

I think the point is that Twitter, a multibillion corporation run by rich, powerful, and well-connected people, isn’t in the same position w.r.t. the government as fledgeling starlets were against Weinstein.

Twitter could have said no, and they would have been fine; they are protected from the government by the Constitution. Twitter has tons of money, and could easily file a lawsuit or defend one as well.