I deactivated my Twitter account will you do the same?

[Yehuda57]

You're evading the question

The question was not directed to me, I didn't deactivate my account, and there is hilarious, riveting content posted there as of a few hours ago.

But the question wasn't asked of you either. That you decided any boycott must be emotional in nature and couldn't possibly be driven by logic or thoughtfulness is rather telling.

[yesitsme]

For those who've deactivated, I'm wondering why?  To show your anger at Twitter?  To make Trump feel he's not alone? Because with Trump gone, there's nobody you want to follow? 

Just curious. 

I don't personally care about trump, but I'm very disturbed that Twitter can do such a thing to the sitting President of the United States
Just like others where in shock what has happened to the capital on Jan 6, they seem to forget that in the capital there is a president that was elected by the nation the way the founding fathers set the rules of elections.

[PlatinumGuy]

The question was not directed to me,

It still sounded to me like you attempted to incorrectly discredit the question.

That you decided any boycott must be emotional in nature and couldn't possibly be driven by logic or thoughtfulness is rather telling.

Words I never said, although it is true that every human action is controlled by emotion to some extent or another. I also never discussed 'any boycott', I discussed a single specific one (which may not technically be a boycott anyways if it's motivated by losing interest)

I don't personally care about trump, but I'm very disturbed that Twitter can do such a thing to the sitting President of the United States
Just like others where in shock what has happened to the capital on Jan 6, they seem to forget that in the capital there is a president that was elected by the nation the way the founding fathers set the rules of elections.

He knew people were disturbed. Why does being disturbed about something cause you to remove the app? Did you intend to answer the question?


Again, an actual answer from somebody would point to some logic involved, but thus far we haven't seen it.

[yesitsme]

I don't personally care about trump, but I'm very disturbed that Twitter can do such a thing to the sitting President of the United States
Just like others where in shock what has happened to the capital on Jan 6, they seem to forget that in the capital there is a president that was elected by the nation the way the founding fathers set the rules of elections.

And BTW I'll add Twitter is pretty boring without trump, it takes 2 to have a discussion/argument, if you silence one side there's no one to talk to, trump got Twitter where it is, and Twitter got trump where he is, the filed divorce and both are going down the drain, as a business perspective it would be much a smarter move for Twitter to just delete the messages they believe is dangerous........

[Yehuda57]

Boycotts entail refusing to do business with someone, punishing them financially.  But that doesn't apply to Twitter.  Or boycotts might pressure a company to change their policy, but it's not clear why Twitter would respond to the loss of a few tweeters.  So you're okay with tweeting, just think it should be with a smaller company?

1) boycotts can also be because of moral objection to a company, not just for financial pressure or to push for policy change.

2) why do you think the boycotters think it will be "just a few tweeters"? They are trying to get it to be many tweeters that would hurt Twitter.

3) personally I'm not much of a boycotter, though I feel like Twitter is rife with double standards and hypocritical policies. Even without Trump. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others haven't fared much better.

"Why would Trump's leaving change that?"
So your deactivation isn't driven by the loss of Trump's tweets themselves, but by the way in which he was forced into non-Twitterdom?

Honestly I don't understand your questions. Why is it so difficult to see how blatantly awful Twitter is behaving.

Do you feel Twitter is correct to ban Trump, but not, say, Louis Farrakhan, or Chinese state media accounts, which post anti Semitic hate speech and cover up of literal concentration camps respectively?

[zh cohen]

It's an emotional move, not something that's calculated for a superior outcome. Similar thought process to those who think BLM is bad, so instead of thinking what would solve the problem, jump the other direction into Trump. It's like hitting somebody you're angry at instead of attempting to rectify the situation.

Fascinating that a guy who prides himself on his ability to see things from both perspectives can't see a logical reason for someone to do something he thinks is stupid.

[PlatinumGuy]

Honestly I don't understand your questions. Why is it so difficult to see how blatantly awful Twitter is behaving.

Do you feel Twitter is correct to ban Trump, but not, say, Louis Farrakhan, or Chinese state media accounts, which post anti Semitic hate speech and cover up of literal concentration camps respectively?

Am I correct in understanding that you are claiming there is no possible reason not to deactivate if Twitter behaving badly? Because he never said Twitter behaved fairly or asked why somebody thinks they didn't.

can't see a logical reason for someone to do something he thinks is stupid.

Again something I didn't say. I merely said the reason IMO is different. I know very well what a possible logical thought process is, I don't believe it's the primary motivator here.

[Yehuda57]

Fascinating that a guy who prides himself on his ability to see things from both perspectives can't see a logical reason for someone to do something he thinks is stupid.

So fascinating that the same people who railed against Twitter and Facebook in 2016 for spreading disinformation that made Hillary lose are now at a loss as to why Trump supporters would criticize the platforms.

[PlatinumGuy]

So fascinating that the same people who railed against Twitter and Facebook in 2016 for spreading disinformation that made Hillary lose are now at a loss as to why Trump supporters would criticize the platforms.

Nobody said not to criticize them or asked why you criticize. You're pretending the question was completely different than it was.

Fascinating that a guy who prides himself on his ability to see things from both perspectives

For the record I don't think I ever said that either, I pride myself on attempting to see both sides. I don't claim to always have such capability, and if I did, I misspoke.

[Yehuda57]

This was the question

For those who've deactivated, I'm wondering why?  To show your anger at Twitter?  To make Trump feel he's not alone? Because with Trump gone, there's nobody you want to follow? 

Just curious.

And I'm confused. Boycotting for any number of reasons is not a new concept. What's so difficult to understand?

[biobook]

1) boycotts can also be because of moral objection to a company, not just for financial pressure or to push for policy change.

I admire your pithy writing, but sometimes it's a tad too concise.  When you said

You make as if the idea of boycotting a company or service is brand new

you were trying to say that people deactivated Twitter as a way to express their moral objection to the company's policies?   

Honestly I don't understand your questions. Why is it so difficult to see how blatantly awful Twitter is behaving.

Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.  All have done objectionable things.  Why is this one act of Twitter so much worse, and enough to cause people to stop using it?

I don't personally care about trump, but I'm very disturbed that Twitter can do such a thing to the sitting President of the United States

So you're upset that Twitter would close the account of a President, not that you want to necessarily continue to hear everything he feels like tweeting?

[PlatinumGuy]

So fascinating that the same people who railed against Twitter and Facebook in 2016 for spreading disinformation that made Hillary lose are now at a loss as to why Trump supporters would criticize the platforms.

I mean there is the small difference that one action was illegal and resulted in a $5B fine, and the other is constitutionally guaranteed.

[biobook]

And I'm confused. Boycotting for any number of reasons is not a new concept. What's so difficult to understand?

Usually a boycott is accompanied by an articulation of the specific reasons for it, and that was missing from the OP.

[Yehuda57]

Usually a boycott is accompanied by an articulation of the specific reasons for it, and that was missing from the OP.

It's only one of the biggest news stories of the day. Seriously, I don't get what's so hard to understand.

When people were boycotting Uber in 2016 by the thousand, if someone started a poll asking if you deleted your Uber account would you need to ask why?

[biobook]

It's only one of the biggest news stories of the day. Seriously, I don't get what's so hard to understand.

When people were boycotting Uber in 2016 by the thousand, if someone started a poll asking if you deleted your Uber account would you need to ask why?

Why is it so hard to simply answer my question? 

I asked "For those who've deactivated, I'm wondering why?" and it seems the answer is "to express our moral indignation at Twitter for closing the account of a sitting President."

Okay, now I get it. 

[PlatinumGuy]

Why is it so hard to simply answer my question? 

I asked "For those who've deactivated, I'm wondering why?" and it seems the answer is "to express our moral indignation at Twitter for closing the account of a sitting President."

Okay, now I get it.

Would you consider that a logical move calculated for positive outcome?

[biobook]

Would you consider that a logical move calculated for positive outcome?

I'm not judging it one way or another.  Just trying to understand other people. 

[PlatinumGuy]

I'm not judging it one way or another.  Just trying to understand other people.

Let me know if you ended up with an understanding different than mine

[Yehuda57]

Why is it so hard to simply answer my question? 

I asked "For those who've deactivated, I'm wondering why?" and it seems the answer is "to express our moral indignation at Twitter for closing the account of a sitting President."

Okay, now I get it.

I didn't deactivate my account, the question is not directed at me. In this quote you omit the rest of your question, which presents a few options, none of which are typical of a boycott. One might wonder why you didn't assume the reason people are boycotting Twitter are for the same reasons they boycott any other company.

[YitzyS]

Planning to deactivate the 10 or 12 accounts I don't use anymore   

I don't have 10 or 12 accounts - this was a joke - but I do have a few and was planning to deactivate all but one.

Here's my reasoning:

I feel that what Twitter did by banning Trump was wrong, and a threat to democracy. As I've posted elsewhere, if there is a civil war in this country, social media's stifling of conservative voices would be a greater catalyst than the storming of the Capitol, which was a one time event that was condemned by all, whereas making millions of people feel stifled will probably cause some of them to express their anger in actions.

That being the case, I want to do something that will diminish Twitter's financial power. Twitter is only worth so much, and only wields so much power, because it has 330 million users. Closing down accounts, or even closing down some accounts, lowers that number of users and lowers the value of Twitter, thus diminishing their power. As a side benefit, it will make them think twice before banning other conservatives.

And if you will ask what one person's action will do to a company that is 330 million strong, I'll ask you if you ever voted.