I understand where you're coming from but I don't think a coordinated ban of the sitting president across platforms is equivalent to a forum ban. And I don't think you think that either.
Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs.
You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?
Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs.
You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?