I read Trump's last 2 tweets before they banned him and I think they stretched too far with their reasoning. As you all know I am not a Trump fan and believe he definitely fanned the fires of insurrection against the Constitutional government of the country he was entrusted to lead, but I see no reason for his censorship over those tweets he was punished for.
I tend to agree. They banned him for what he was about to say. Not saying I think that's a good idea per se but it was pretty clear he was getting ready to disavow his repudiation of the Capitol rioters. We've seen this many times such as in the Access Hollywood tape situation or in relation to Charlottesville. He gets backed into a corner and is forced to say something he doesn't believe, he stews on it, and then he eventually disavows what he originally said. I don't think Twitter wanted to wait for that to play out.
I think Twitter was worried they'd be blamed or held liable for when Trump eventually disavowed that he ever repudiated the rioters and then whipped up a new mob to head to D.C.
It's a dangerous game Big Tech is playing but I've yet to see any sensible proposals that have any real chance at changing the current status quo.
Quite honestly, Twitter had more than sufficient evidence for Trump's repeated violation of their rules but they held off on doing anything because of his elected office. They were going to suspend him either the second he left office or the first time he violated the rules after leaving office.
The way I look at it is that Twitter simply wasn't honest in their explanation. They are claiming those two Tweets were a violation but as you said that's a real stretch. They should've just been honest and explained that he's broken the rules dozens of times, he started showing signs he was going to disavow his repudiation of the mob, and that they didn't want that to occur on their platform.
I think that still would've attracted a lot of heat but at least they'd have been honest. The other alternative was to say he's going to be suspended until after the inauguration if he posts anything praising or condoning the rioters. We all know he wouldn't have been able to help himself and he'd have done exactly what they told him not to. Boom. Suspended until Biden is inaugurated. Lift the suspension once the inauguration is over and make it clear the protections he was afforded as a US Government officeholder no longer apply. He'd have caught a permanent suspension within 24-72 hours.
We do have a problem with Big Tech monopolies and a lack of honest free-market competition. But, that's nowhere near the immediate issue that this week's violence is. Nonetheless, Republicans are going to use Trump's suspension as a pivot point away from the Capitol riots. You can already see this happening on social media. They are desperately trying to shift the focus of the country and the political discourse away from the violence that many of them (intentionally or unintentionally) egged on.
The other attempt to pivot is to claim that any attempt to impeach and remove Trump is divisive and incites his supporters. It's a really preposterous claim considering they just spent two months lying to the public and fomenting rage by claiming the election was stolen. That was truly unifying behavior wasn't it? As was objecting to the electoral college certification and acceptance in Congress. Yet another behavior that was not at all about unifying the country or turning down the temperature.
Let's face it, the riots at the Capitol did not change the heavy partisanship and disingenuous hackery coming out of D.C. that much at all. You have a handful who do seem changed, but for the rest of them as soon as the shock wore off they were back to the same mentality and behavior that brought us Trump and brought us the riots.