I don’t know that’s true in light of the court ruling that Trump can’t ban people from his social media account. The court held in essence the social media publisher was a public service for Trump’s “official” government statements and based it’s ruing on 1st Amendment grounds. There’s certainly a good argument to be made there.
I forgot about that whole thing, that’s a really good thought.
Via Gabbard’s legal complaint against Google:
At the height of Gabbard’s popularity among Internet searchers in the immediate hours after the debate ended, and in the thick of the critical post-debate period (when television viewers, radio listeners, newspaper read-ers, and millions of other Americans are discussing and searching for presidential candidates), Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account without warning.
For hours, as millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account was arbitrarily and forcibly taken offline. Throughout this period, the Campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension; to get through to someone at Google who could get the Account back online; and to understand and remedy the restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at precisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her.