Thanks for the comment. While I tend to disagree with the idea that no action represents taking sides I do recognize that that’s a legitimate point of disagreement. That said, I do think you make a very good point about Twitter making a smart business decision. Companies should do what’s in their best interests and clearly rescheduling the maintenance was in Twitter’s best interests.

But was it in NTT America’s? While it’s far from clear, the implication from Twitter and NTT America was that the maintenance was critical and that any delay could have some sort of negative impact on one or both companies. If the maintenance made no difference, why not postpone indefinitely? Also in their note explaining the schedule change Twitter references the potential risks to NTT’s international business dealings. We can’t know the answer but I suspect the move was a lot better for Twitter than it was for NTT.

All that said, it did occur to me after reading your comment that the rescheduling could be viewed as a sort of defensive move or a legitimate reaction to a third party’s (the state of Iran) ‘attack’ on Twitter. From what I understand the government of Iran has vastly restricted internet access, has attempted to shut down all forms of communication (including Twitter), and has probably violated Twitter’s terms of service by using it to hunt down its adversaries or by masking identities to spread misinformation. Given that, perhaps Twitter and NTT America can point to their actions as merely protecting their service and their users who ‘play by the rules’.