I resign from communicating with you because you are not arguing in good faith.

Demanding to provide data that is clearly not publicly available is pure demagoguery, as this figure is irrelevant for our discussion: it does not matter if ad revenue from user engagement created by Trump was XXXXX USD or YYYYYY USD, as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero. So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform.

Likewise, the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here. It is another demagogue technique called 'straw man', as you try to bait your opponent into arguing about a completely different social platform.

Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.

> Demanding to provide data that is clearly not publicly available

You claimed to know such data. It's clear you haven't been debating in good faith from the point you made that claim.

> as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero.

No it's not. I provided evidence that he may in fact drive away advertisers.

> So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform.

That's not how it works. Blocking someone who provides a small amount of advertising revenue but who drives away other users would be in the best interest of the platform. Blocking someone who the moderators believe will incite violence is in the best commercial interests of the platform.

> the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here

It's entirely relevant because Trump invested in that platform and spends most of his time there. If they can't make a profit it puts your claim about his ability to attract advertisers in doubt.

> Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.

I never claimed victory. I simply asked you to back up your claims and you got yourself into a panic over that and threatened to quit. Ok. Bye.

> You claimed to know such data.

Can you please give a link to the message where I claimed to know such data?

Sure:

> Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.

You either have those engagement numbers or you don't. Which is it?

You either know how much advertising revenue he generated -or- how much he drove away. Or you don't.

You either have evidence that banning him was against their business interests or you are just guessing. I don't think you have those numbers. You suggested Elon Musk might have those numbers. So it's pretty clear you yourself don't have the internal business numbers that would be used to make those decisions.

Lacking sources to back up your claims, then you were arguing in bad faith. But I'm open minded. Feel free to back up that claim with actual evidence.

So can't provide a link, and with your lie exposed, went into to panic mode, trying to pass your (false) assumptions as a claim I never made, ok.

I provided a quote of the claim you made up based on guesses you made and that you have no evidence for. There is nothing wrong with guessing, just admit it next time when someone asks for your source of data.

Cute copying me with "panic mode". I appreciate the imitation.

Didn't you resign a few comments ago? Or was that another false claim?