If I incite a mob to march on the seat of government, commit acts of sedition against The United States, and directly threaten the peaceful transfer of power, and refuse to abide by the terms of service, I deserve _a lot_ more than being banned from my social media site. You have to look at it in context.
This power has been used in ways I disagree with since before Trump ran for office. I still prefer a rules-based society to anarchy.
However, I also prefer anarchy to oligarchy: People have even specifically demonstrated that Trump was receiving special privileges which prevented him from being banned, and they did so by getting themselves banned for tweeting copies of his tweets.
Any leader inciting insurrection against their own country should be banned.
You know what? I don't think anyone I would support has a problem clearing that very low bar.
Maybe people should be less concerned that Trump got banned for being a lying, traitorous piece of shit and more concerned that he was ever president in the first place.
This was the straw that broke's the camel's back, Trump's influence is waning (since he's not going to be in office any more in a few days), and even his supporters are distancing themselves. I don't think Twitter could have done this earlier without risking lots of blowback.
With great power comes great responsibility. The president of the United States should be aware of how his words will be received. And he is responsible for the consequences of those words. He doesn't have to concede but by constantly claiming the election was stolen he is responsible for the ensuing violence.
Do they have to incite a mob to overtake the halls of a separate and equal branch of our government resulting in the deaths of five people including a police officer?
