He always struck me as a guy who is who he is. He would fail any ideology test because he goes by his gut rather than any ideological compass. I think he felt his supporters were being a bit mercurial for opposing him so vehemently on Israel. Not really an excuse, but I think he just lost his shit and lost his way. So probably a decent guy but he has to do a lot of work to repair that bridge and I have no idea if he's up to it.
But I could be wrong.
I don't think I would agree that just because something is public that it's a public forum. I feel like the public has to own it as well. I looked it up and maybe it's because I predate social media by rather a lot, but I think of it in the classical sense:
The important factor being public ownership of the forum. I will concede that it has colloquially come to include public social media, but I think it's important to distinguish that it's not really the same thing at all as has been discussed through most of our history.
Food for thought. I just think calling them public forums attaches too much importance to a profit seeking endeavor.