Your argument is completely flawed. Twitter has no Civic obligation here. As a Corporation they have a fiduciary responsibility, not to the President or his messaging, but to its broader users.

The fact that there was hate speech by a user, in this case the President, means that Twitter acted in support of its broader platform. It has no obligation to the President or to support his preferred communication platform for hate speech.

> You don’t think citizens have a right to hear exactly what their elected officials say in their own words?

I don’t think the state has the Constitutional power to compel private parties to relay what officials say outside of exceptional cases, because of freedom of speech and the press.

The right to hear isn’t the right to commandeer others resources to have it relayed to your hearing.

Twitter exists in the US, backed by US laws and the framework of the US society. Their ability to do business rests on contracts upheld by US courts. As such, they have certain responsibilities to the people of the United States.

One of those should be to refrain from using their power as a transmitter of information to manipulate the relationship between the people and their government. Maybe here, they have some noble purpose, do we trust that in the future they always will? Maybe in the future they would delete the accounts of Senators who call for antitrust investigations into Twitter. Who knows? Once they have the power, do you trust them to use it only for things you agree with?

A right to hear without any mechanism to enforce it is pointless.

We place reasonable restrictions on companies that serve the general public to ensure they treat all members of the public fairly. You can't decide not to serve certain customers because you don't like their skin color or religion, for example. Another reasonable requirement for a communications company would be that they accurately relay the communications that their users send, without interfering with or manipulating them to serve the company's own purposes.

Twitter also has its Terms of Service and we are all expected to follow those. There have been many that have been banned from Twitter for violent and/or hate speech. What makes the President any different? Why should he get held to a different standard?

But, to that point, why not just ask Alexa or Siri. I’m certain they have increments at a finer granularity of time than every 15 minutes.

It likely has everything to do with our current President’s inability to strike a diplomatic tone in any public discourse.

Please don’t down vote me for an obvious statement, but I do feel the maturity of Political discourse was brought to the school playground level with the election in 2016.

Apologies, app posted reply to wrong comment.

Now that would have been fun to watch. Nicely done!

I have to agree. Google suffers from a really bad case of ADHD when it comes to creating anything for consumption by outside developers...there is a long list and Dart and GWT are just two that stand out because there are large codebases out there that suffered because of these decisions.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Go has made it this far - I mean, it's a great language, I get it, but Google is fickle when it comes to things like this.

Go succeeded because it was largely ignored by Google. Dart was the darling language which flipped miserably and has only recently became relevant.

Dart's relevancy is heavily dependent on Flutter's success.

Seeing how Chrome team pushes for PWAs, Android team woke up and is now delivering JetPack Composer, and we still don't know what is going to happen with Fuchsia, the question remains.

If you know that Go was designed as a migration path away from Python, it's a bit easier to understand why it's gotten so much support from Google.

If it's a drug that blocks entry of the virus into human cells, wouldn't it be ineffective on already infected human beings?

If it works it will block infection of new cells. Already infected cells will die and be shed.

Biologists can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like fighting infection is a war of attrition. So anything you can do that shifts the balance helps.

Some infections might be a war of attrition, but it's not something you can generalize. Fundamentally, stopping entry would just prevent the virus from infecting more cella in the body (which could worsen symptoms) - and coronavirus is more of your standard fast invasion - burn bright and strong before being eliminated style infection than a chronic slow burn, so stopping that fast invasion could help.

Clearly you’ve never struggled to the extent someone has where they finally HAD to reach for help.

I love that a large group of people that are well and don’t have ADHD seem to think they can tell people with ADHD that they’re full of shit and really don’t have it.

Plus he's no longer involved with D.

Not true -- he has just stepped back from a leadership role afaict.

He is. He just stepped down from the leadership due to family reasons. Atila Neves took it over now.