This one can take over breitbart or oan.

I’m not angry, that’s in your mind. You seem to have a habit of linking things that shouldn’t be linked. Good day.

That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating ‘operating in’ to ‘being reachable from’), I don’t know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I’ve never called it that.

(1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.

They’re not accessible anymore from a jurisdiction if said jurisdiction which rules they are violating decides to change their networking policies. And because twitter likes to be accessible, twitter decided to comply with the rules eventually. You seem intentionally obtuse btw.

operate in != run from

If you want an apt example of a company ‘run from’ America not allowed to ‘operate in’ another jurisdiction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil

The length of time I’ve seen people commenting this, makes me think they mean ‘recently’ on a geological scale.