You think a $40 billion stock moved 6% in a day based on non-public internal discussions among executives and lawyers? If so, that would constitute one of the most blatant cases of insider trading in modern history.
I’m suggesting the beliefs of the Twitter board of directors may have changed due to non-public discussions, causing them to ban Trump despite the foreseeable negative impact on their bottom line, as that would be a less-bad alternative to the consequences of not doing so.
I don’t see why this is a controversial claim for me to make given that (1) they did, in fact, ban Trump’s account, and (2) people have been pointing at Trump’s violations the TOS for years already, so Twitter probably previously had non-public grounds for not banning him, grounds which are no longer sufficient.
(Point 2 is weaker than point 1, point 1 is basically incontrovertible).
