A.K.A: "They have paid, but not us" or "The other ones pay better"

Twitter doesn't allow paid political advertising either.

Which is the means by which the accounts set themselves up to be canceled.

> political message reach should be earned, not bought.

This is complete bullshit: paid professional campaigning has always existed and is used by everybody.

For this comment to make sense you need to specify the following:

1) By ‘always’ you mean since Twitter was founded

2) By ‘is used by everybody’ you mean it was done using backroom deals and that bought support was quietly and as organically appearing as possible put on the platform

Bloomberg broke the first rule of SV politics, i.e. don’t get us caught in the middle, or exposed to liability, (otherwise known as plausible deniability). If Bloomberg had done this quietly and it was just a rumor Twitter would have given him a pass. But his team seems to have decided the bill in a china shop approach was their best bet.

But it is getting him press coverage so maybe a win anyway.

I don't think so. If the ads ended with "Paid for by Bloomberg for President", it may have been ok under Twitter's rules, which seems entirely reasonable.

You're missing the point. The discussion around the paid ads shifted from "Bloomberg is trying to buy the election" to "Twitter/Facebook are only ok with political ads as long as they are seeing some of the action". The former is awful for Bloomberg, the latter is awful for the companies.

They did end with a disclosure. The Twitter rule being violated is against mass copy-pasting tweets.

Has always existed is not the same as should exist. Everyone does it does not mean it should be done.

Why does Twitter (or any private company) have to buy into that?

It s a good cop out for Twitter Inc. though