"Twitter mostly only bans people throwing around death threats"
to,
"well this one guy once wrote some bad stuff under a pseudonym in another forum, and this other guy has rude followers"
Do you see why people might not exactly trust Twitter's commitment to being a content-neutral platform, or why they might be reluctant to give them huge amounts of free content and network effects that can be taken out at a whim?
I asked seany if they should unban people who make death and rape threats. I didn't assert that Twitter bans only people who make death and rape threats. So, no, I'm not "going" anywhere.
Now, as to your eliding of actual malicious intent: pointing the Eye of Sauron at people, when you know-and-can't-not-know that your followers will deluge whoever you point at with death and rape threats, is not, in my book, merely "having rude followers". It is intentionally trying to harm somebody. And this is what Milo did, regularly, on Twitter--while he finally picked on a celebrity who had the social standing to hit back, he would regularly retweet some nobody who never said anything to him to his followers and let the head-hunting commence. You should be judged for that, and you shouldn't be allowed to continue harming people. So yeah, I'm OK with him being kicked to the curb.
But I'm gonna be honest: given the way you're writing about all of this, you should be reluctant to use Twitter. You should leave Twitter. I think that's a great idea. I entreat you to definitely, without a question, leave and start your own thing. And maybe you'll prove me wrong, that this land of ponies is so much better for everyone, instead of just the swarms of abusers--but I doubt it. So go get started! I look forward to seeing it.
I'm impressed by your ability to ignore the banning of people like RSM for apparently no reason other than having wrote wrongthink in another forum. I suppose that was "harmful" too?
Given the left's continuing efforts to restrict freedom of association, I don't find myself under any obligation to respect their desire to exclude people of my ideological persuasion from any given platform.
Ironically Twitter's censorship efforts are just barely effective enough to drive respectable, real-name conservatives off of their platform, but laughably underpowered against dedicated trolls. If anything it's giving them a nice lesson in disposable identities and minor opsec.
It's a shame that we had to get this deep into the thread to get you to admit your preferred policy (and Twitter's, apparently) is that straightforward ideological purges by default make the platform better (unless you can prove a negative and establish that no one ever had a sad as a result of their writing).
Instead of leading with spurious claims of abuse, next time you should go with that on top.
"Twitter mostly only bans people throwing around death threats"
to,
"well this one guy once wrote some bad stuff under a pseudonym in another forum, and this other guy has rude followers"
Do you see why people might not exactly trust Twitter's commitment to being a content-neutral platform, or why they might be reluctant to give them huge amounts of free content and network effects that can be taken out at a whim?