[NikolaNovak]

>>Or they were banned for spreading disinformation,

New to this thread, and I may agree with your stance, but if this is how you defend it, please stop :D

More seriously though: "Spreading disinformation" is such a vaguely-defined, over-used phrase to justify any and all censorship, that any attempt to use it automatically invites suspicion of bad faith; and usually correctly so. Add to that my own personal perspective that censorship on account of spreading disinformation invariably backfires spectacularly .

If under discussion is "everybody censors" and our best defense is "but we do it to combat spreading disinformation", we have lost and catastrophically so. EVERYbody does it to combat "disinformation", however they choose to define it.

(I'm not taking some extreme "all truths are relative" approach here either; I'm merely focusing on this specific justification for censorship as utterly untenable)

[ericmay]

My point wasn't "say something conspiratorial ergo get banned from Twitter" because if that were the case there would be far fewer people using Twitter. My point (and certainly I could make this more clear) was that it could be someone who is paid to say things that aren't true, for example, which would fall under this "spreading disinformation" category, but the OP has no idea because they don't have any information.

As an aside, it is also Russian propaganda and disinformation. But that's unrelated to the main point.