What is the purpose of this comment? It has the appearance of being a defense of an unjust status quo. Is that your intent? Or do you think a "reminder" of the existence and consequences of unjust power structures serves some other, useful purpose? It doesn't, but I'm interested to know your rationale.
I'm just saying that platform's behavior to top users, doesn't say much about what they can or can't do (or are doing) under their ToS to normal people.
The purpose of the comment seems fairly straightforward and highlights exactly what was originally claimed, that the section of the ToS that claims Instagram can close any account for any reason is only true for people who have no influence or notoriety. It is not true of public and/or influential figures who could have a strong claim against Instagram for arbitrarily deciding to close their account.
That one set of rules apply to people in power and another set of rules apply to the general population is certainly something to take into account.
Do you think that this comment provides new information to literally anybody who is reading it? Given the answer is obviously "no", what do you think the actual effect is? Do you understand that it reads as a defense of the status quo?
