Fully agreed and totally expected for people to do this. But Twitter is going so far as to ban people who haven't made threats, but that Twitter considers evil.
EDIT: They're also shadowbanning many accounts of those who support Trump. Scott Adams recently switched his endorsement, and within a few days was shadowbanned.
Hacker News does the same, incidentally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6060954
I always found that weird about the American system. "Free speech" on the one hand, and yet extreme reactions to political opinions everywhere. You regularly find Americans who publicly declare that they won't work with people with particular opinions. It switches which side is the one overtly silencing the other, which is also weird. When I was a teenager, it was definitely republicans silencing people, and yet today, not so much.
Very weird.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12205161#12208276
> I think it means the same thing as shadow banning. We have largely phased that out, except for spammers and serial trolls. For the most part we tell people that we banned them by posting a reply to one of their comments, and when they seem rehabilitable (I suppose that's not a word?) we invite them to email hn@ycombinator.com if they want to be unbanned.
How about: they just have some BS department/AI that shadowbans based on user complaints etc, and they do a lousy job at it?
Here's the same result, without the conspiracy part.
His original "endorsement" of Hillary was driven by fear of being physically injured or killed due to his support of Trump[1]. He's been pro-Trump from the beginning.
[1]: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for...
More accurately, that's the reason Scott Adams gives.
Twitter hasn't (as far as I know) responded yet.
Since Adams is known to use sock-puppets there might be something else going on.
Why would Twitter ban trump supporters and not all the other really vile people infesting twitter?
Because they work for the Clintons and Saudi Arabia.