With respect to Twitter banning permanently @realDonaldTrump and the justification it provides requires attention. It’s the easiest thing to ban him after he stopped being the President and can no longer take steps to the commercial detriment of the corporation.
It’s obvious that after the unprecedented incidents in DC, there was commercial pressure in terms of shareholders and Directors to take steps, if for nothing more than to ensure that the Biden admin doesn’t come down hard on them.
There is a good case to suspend Trump based on his tweet during the invasion of Capitol Hill, which was to effectively point his supporters to his own VP Pence. This was as good a case as any to not just suspend him but criminally prosecute him.
However that boat sailed. So what they did was take his next 2 tweets. And say that’s why he got banned. However refusing to acknowledge the veracity of the election is not hate speech no matter how Twitter frames it. This is a terrible attempt to justify a decision already taken 
If denying the election is hate speech why didn’t Twitter ban Trump months ago? Why does not Twitter ban Indian politicians who claim the Indians elections are rigged? One can say “their tweets don’t lead to violence” but there is no violence suggested in the tweet
That the elections were rigged is a falsehood but which politician does not lie? If lying is the offense, Trump should have lost his account in 2016. Again Trump did indulge in dangerous speech but that was a few tweets ago and it was then that Twitter should have kicked him out
For other world leaders, hate speech was removed but the account was not “permanently suspended”. Why? Because it wasn’t their business interests to do so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
