No, they care what Trump’s followers think he said, because they’ve already committed one heinous act of violence.

Read this carefully. They are looking at the actual response to these tweets. Not their own personal feelings. The actual effects on other Twitter users.

If you banned a public official's account every time a substantial number of their followers misinterpreted it and committed violence, you'd have none left.

In your experience, does that happen a lot? Please cite examples.

For me I am cultural Free Speech Absolutist, I see censorship as a far greater threat and history generally agree with my position.

Now the most common retort is "but its a private platform" which is true, but it also enjoys regulated protections from liability those protections should come with strings attach to them to uphold and honor the free speech rights of the public.

As to the danger, anyone that believes Trump is the source, cause, or even primary instigator of what is happening is not paying attention to reality or the last 20+ years or so of social unrest.

I can assure you if/when Trump is banned from all platforms and is relegated to the dust bins of society to fundamental cultural problems that are the root of the unrest will still be there

Trump is a symptom, Avatar, a Symbol of the problem for sure, Trump can be a lightening rod I will not deny that either. However removing one lightening rod will not make the lightening disappear it will just find another path.

I do not have a solution to those cultural problems either, and that is even more worrisome than Twitter censoring people, which honestly I wish they would have done in 2016 as twitter would be a less relevant platform today which is why they did not in 2016 they need Trump just as much as Trump needed them

i do know that censorship (private or public) is not the path to unity, it as never worked in history so there is no reason to believe it will work in the current year..

EDIT: ------------------ Since I have now been throttled for having incorrect opions allow me to respond to the below comment here

>> @krapp says "That's why the First Amendment only applies to Congress"

That is a very simplistic take, and I never once said anything about the 1st Amendment.

Free Speech is a natural right of human's which is protected from government infringement by the 1st amendment, but the 1st amendment does not grant or bestow this right upon us, we have simply by being alive

This is also called the Lockean understanding of Rights.

You have also conflated Free Speech and the Right os Association, another natural right everyone has. The right of association is what gives twitter the ethical foundation to ban or refuse to publish the words of anyone they choose

Which I 100% support, however the fly in the ointment is the fact that congress has given special legal liability protections to Twitter where by they will not be held liable if they choose to associate with the public at large as a platform. IMO granting these liabilities shields to twitter, twitter should also have to accept they will welcome all legal protected speech. They would also be free to choose to reject that liability shield and retain their right of association.

>but it also enjoys regulated protections from liability those protections should come with strings attach to them to uphold and honor the free speech rights of the public.

The free speech rights of the public include the right not to be compelled to hear, host or publish speech against one's will. That's why the First Amendment only applies to Congress - if it also applied to the public, it would limit their freedom of speech.

I agree with everything you're saying here, but it's just not related to the current situation. Twitter didn't ban Trump because they think it'll have a healing effect and resolve social divisions in American society; they banned him because they think he might incite his supporters to violently attack the inauguration ceremony on January 20th, as he incited them to attack Congress two days ago.