[blunte]

Had Trump not been President, he would have been ejected long ago for violating Twitter standards and terms.

One could argue that it was unreasonable for Twitter to give him special extra leeway compared to other users, up until it finally decided it did not have to continue making special concessions for him.

Of course the tech companies which provide platforms must do some enforcement of the content being presented by its users. If that content is illegal in a given jurisdiction, then the tech company can face penalties or complete shutdown if it does not make an effort to police its users.

The difficulty comes in deciding what speech should be allowed and which should be suppressed. Even without the governmental legal jeopardy the companies face, the US is a very litigious land. Anyone with a motivated lawyer or enough money can sue the platform for enabling speech that they find personally damaging. And of course with content "owned" by an entity, that entity can sue the platform for allowing their content to be distributed illegally.

If [edit typo carification: if you] setup an account on xing.com (German LinkedIn-like service) and put as your profile description that the Holocaust never happened, you can be sure the platform will suppress your speech or kick you off completely. It is hypocritical for Merkel to point at Twitter when she surely supports similar tech powers locally.