One thought I have worrying me about it is the precedent this situation sets.

Like we have the president of the united states, the "leader of the free world" some would say, censored and forbidden to speak because the technology companies consider that he is wrong.

They say it's to prevent violence - but he didn't directly call for violence - so it's really that his viewpoint shared by much of his audience, is capable of inciting violence in some of those people even without any actual call to violence.

To me that's kinda worrying. That a technology company gets to make it's own judgement on what is or isn't true, and what may or may not cause people to become dangerous, and that it can assert that choice effectively blocking the ability of elected officials such as the president of the USA to communicate.

To me that's a conundrum of it's own. Like even for people who don't like trump. In this instance it suits them. Might even really be safer in this instance what with the mob the other day.

But do we really want to have a society where guys like zuckerberg decide if they think a head of states message is too dangerous for us to hear or not? Like the politics of this instance aside. That doesn't seem like the world we grew up in.

Trump and his deficit spending bubble economy....yay....