A sitting president? A world leader? #45 should have been silenced long ago.

Refusing to lend someone your megaphone is not the same as silencing them.

Facebook and Twitter are companies with terms of service that everyone has to obey. These TOS aren't really difficult to work with. It shouldn't be a challenge for a world leader to act with honesty, integrity, and decency online. I have zero sympathy for trump. He can still make public statements to the press anytime he wishes.

Will you fight for me when Facebook puts me in jail?

I don't understand why there is the presumption that a sitting (or former) president should get any type of special treatment from a private entity. Saying they silenced him suggests they infringed on his rights, whereas they gave him plenty of previous exemptions for abusing their rules. I'm more concerned that the president got special privileges.

If I remember correctly, they refrained from suspending or banning him this far BECAUSE he was a sitting president, and his words were a matter of public interest and record archives. Now that he's pretty much done, it's not necessary to keep his account open, and they've banned him as they would anyone else who repeatedly breaks their rules. The 1st amendment does not apply since twitter is not a govt entity. He can start a blog if he likes.

These are private companies operating their companies the way they see fit.

Stop defending Trump, it's getting old.

Social media being socially responsible is definitely a precedent we want to set. My only complaint is why did they wait so long!

They can’t silence him. All they can do is prevent him from using their service. A service which, btw, I have never had any interest in using. So have I silenced myself? Ask my friends on AgnosticDotCom!