I bet this would hit the news in a huge way - Trump would certainly not be able to contain himself and do video responses - or it might set him over the edge, not having that ability to vent - maybe a good thing, maybe not.
It would certainly gain a lot of positive attention and give huge props to Twitter IMHO too.
You are under the impression that everyone shares your opinion and then go for the dismissive #fakenews. I guess you assume anyone who thinks ill of your view must be a Trump supporter and that is some type of slam that can dismiss without thought of others.
> Because they're acknowledging and disallowing abusive behaviour?
They might have a bit more of a leg to stand on if their abuse council had a wider political spread or they actually policed threats that are illegal in a consistent manner. They are so ham fisted that they cannot even point out a rules violation with suspending an actress's account.
> Or of course that's just all #fakenews - the abusive behaviour?
The whole "threatening nuclear war violates" as abusive behavior is a losing argument. The President doesn't like a lot of people and doesn't conceal that information. The idea any of his tweets go beyond hurting someone's feelings is pretty absurd. In contrast, Twitter allows actual threats of assassination without consequence. Nevermind all the threats of rape, etc. directed at women on Twitter without any answer. Look at any popular, conservative women's timeline and see all the crap the abuse council and twitter support lets through. Actual threats versus hurt feelings shows what should have action taken.
All of this is just some people's desire to remove a direct outlet from groups of people. It has nothing to do with actual threats.
It would certainly gain a lot of positive attention and give huge props to Twitter IMHO too.