Awhile back, Twitter instituted a new TOS (term or service) that basically protected verified users from so-called anonymous users. Basically if you’re an average, everyday Joe without a precious blue check and you curse at a verified account, you can be suspended.
Those with blue checkmarks, however, are clearly free to treat others as they see fit (as long as they buy into and promote the Left’s agenda). Case in point:
— John Niven (@NivenJ1) August 16, 2017
Guess how fast they’d suspend someone for talking this way to Valerie Jarrett or Susan Rice.
— Stacey Lennox (@ScotsFyre) August 24, 2017
Because in Twitter’s view they are attacking the RIGHT PEOPLE. It’s never been about decency or treating people well, it’s always been about what furthers their agenda.
They'll give a blue check to any nutjob that claims to be a writer I guess. "I'm insane!!" Check ✔️
— AJ 🇺🇸 (@AJ_FranklinGirl) August 24, 2017
Only if their insanity promotes certain talking points and ideas.
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) August 24, 2017
Bingo. They don’t want to, people like John Niven say the things they wish they could.
Now THAT is deplorable.
— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) August 24, 2017
That it is.
That guy says he's a writer. He uses the f-word way too much to be anything but a not-too-bright mockery of a real writer
— Joe the Dissident (@joethepatriotic) August 24, 2017
Didn't they say the F-word against famous people would not be tolerated?
— Sandy (@RightGlockMom) August 24, 2017
Apparently not if it’s one blue check against another? That and if the blue check in question being attacked leans the wrong way politically.
Then it’s AOK.
Because Twitter has two sets of rules. One for conservatives and one for hypocritical left-wing nut jobs.
— Brooks (@Brooks_the_Lab) August 24, 2017
And that’s the reality of most social media.