Only a few hours after Twitter announced a ban on President Donald Trump’s @realdonaldtrump account, he has attempted to tweet from at least two other accounts under his control. Tweets posted to the official @POTUS account were swiftly deleted, and after the same thread was posted on the Trump campaign’s @TeamTrump account, it has been suspended entirely. An account for the Trump campaign’s digital director is also suspended.

In a response statement, Twitter cited its ban evasion policy, which says that if an account is being used to evade a ban, it’s subject to suspension.

In the deleted tweets, Trump complained about the treatment he’s receiving, and claimed he is negotiating with “various other sites” while also looking at building his own platform “in the near future.” The accounts also proclaimed “We will not be SILENCED!” before they were shut down. How having his own platform would align with his stated objective to repeal Section 230 (the law that would protect his platform from being held directly responsible for what people post on it) is unclear.

So far, the president has not attempted to release a statement via the White House website or called a press conference. According to reports, the Trump campaign has not emailed its followers in over 48 hours — a rare occurrence. Someone in the Trump administration emailed the text of the tweet to White House pool reporter Hans Nichols after seeing the tweets on the @POTUS account.

Twitter spokesperson: “As we’ve said, using another account to try to evade a suspension is against our rules. We have taken steps to enforce this with regard to recent Tweets from the @POTUS account. For government accounts, such as @POTUS and @WhiteHouse, we will not suspend those accounts permanently but will take action to limit their use.

*SMH*

Why do they care? Is it a situation where he is being banned for political reasons? Regardless of how absurd his tweets may have been, as far as I can tell they are within the language and other guidelines for the site.
Are they banning Trump for political reasons, or media reasons? Or of a fear of a majority of the people causing an uprising? 

Against who?

*shrug*

Eh, Trump routinely violated the terms of service. It's been a case study in power differentials; people get banned for far less than Trump has said on Twitter, Facebook, and other social sites.

I don't think Trump or his team is competent enough to start anything. He might lease his name to some other service, though, if you want to come up with your own social media site and pitch it!

I don't do Twitter or Facebook so I'm not familiar with the body of his tweets, only read a couple and heard people talk about them.
What terms did he violate?

------
I just want to add, the timing of his ban was certainly political.

Well, he really stepped up the violations after he lost ...

Abusive behavior and threats is the biggest one he’s violated since the day he signed up for Twitter.

How does "Abusive behavior" translate into text?
Examples please.

The most basic example: simply calling people names can get you banned from Twitter & Facebook.

Yeah, let alone inciting riots ...
FB and Twitter have been putting a lot of people in "jail" (not able to post for X-days) for a month or so now ...
(Zoomie, Kat, and others)

Nobody around here have any discomfort with deplatforming in general, tho? The bizarre acquiescence we all had to what are essentially spaces which act as "town squares," privately owned or not, and that rather than cede any measure of public discourse or coordination with elected officials, they instead did their own little kabuki "government" theatre of performative trial and punitive consequence. And all of us, gov't included were like, cool cool cool cool, thnx, what a relief, you guys really know how to run this rodeo!

So...alarming to me. Maybe cuz Mark Zuckerburg was literally my absolute nemesis on the bus when we were in middle school and I know what a loveless cunt he is?  Like, shark's eyes, like a doll's eyes, dig?

(I'm waiting for Emp with this one)

Me too!

I am mostly deriving some amusement out of this at the moment. The people whining about it currently are the same people that are most opposed to regulating anything or taxing anything while extending & expanding corporate power. This is the world of their design. We live in a world of adhesion contracts and forced arbitration for most of us. And it's only getting worse.

I'm also really, really amused that some people think the solution to "free speech" on social media platforms is eliminating the liability shield of Section 230. You know what happens if you eliminate the liability shield for Facebook and the rest? Moderation becomes even more intense & arbitrary in the absence of further regulation. 

Personally, I think you can go one of two ways in general (beyond just social media, because I think everything is a fucking mess): get rid of corporations entirely. Corporations allow people to act without having any skin in the game; no one, in the end, is actually liable for anything. Everything becomes an externality. And the "legal personhood" has been obscenely expanded in general.

Or you regulate corporations. You shove social responsibility down their throats. You tax them. You limit the rights of their "legal personhood" in exchange for the limited liability provisions of incorporating. Maybe you take corporate charters out of the hands of states, so there's no more shopping for the most permissive option for incorporation.

In specific social media, I have huge problems with the way social media companies operate. The absolute least that should be done in my opinion is to pass laws to treat them as public utilities & regulate them and probably adopt something like Andrew Yang's plan where they have to pay for the data they're harvesting.