[frumper]

Trump was the head of the government agencies at the time he was banned from Twitter. You're going to have to go down some strange rabbit holes to find the logic to work that out. It's perfectly reasonable that the people running Twitter didn't agree with Trump's politics and picked a reason to ban him.

[robador]

And as a private company they had the right to do so. Freedom!

[NickC25]

Strange rabbit holes?

How about Twitter having a preexisting, clear Terms of Service that ALL users must abide by?

Don't forget that Twitter was at the time and remains a private venue that was not and is not a government run organization or application. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason. The 1st amendment covers what one can say in public, but explicitly does not cover private repercussions for said speech, ONLY government repercussions. Twitter is not public, and was not public. Private businesses and entities can and do control speech on their platforms and premises all the time, and have numerous laws protecting their right to do so.

How about this one:

User: Hi, I'd like to sign up for an account.

Twitter: Sure, you're able to do so. Here are the rules we've established for our platform. By signing up, you're agreeing to our rules.

User: OK, I agree. deliberately breaks rules

Twitter: You can't do that. We are warning you. This is a private business, and you agreed to our terms. Your actions are in violation of the terms you agreed to.

User: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah muh free speech deliberately breaks rules again

Twitter: We're not joking. You can't post that sort of thing. It's against our rules. Do it one more time and we will be forced to ban you.

User: deliberately breaks rules again

Twitter: we are fully within our rights to ban you, and we're doing so.

User: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah political persecution waaaaaaaaaaaaaah I'm going to sue you!

It has nothing to do with who the user is or was. Private businesses have full legal right to exercise control over their platforms. You break the rules, you are banned, simple as that.

[frumper]

I apparently didn't clearly convey my message. He'd have to use some twisted logic to blame the banning of Trump from twitter on the influence from government agencies and not on Twitter. That is what the person I was responding to was saying. I don't disagree with anything you said, nor do I think my original statement does in the context of the comment I replied to.

[mrangle]

There's nothing twisted nor interpretive about it. The FBI was fully integrated into Twitter Trust and Safety.

[mrangle]

You're ignorant of the facts of the situation.

[mrangle]

Trump was not "the head of the government agencies", in terms of functional control. Implying conspiratorial thinking is not an argument against the concrete facts. Which are that a). The FBI was integrated into Trust and Safety at Twitter b). Trust and Safety banned Trump while he was sitting President, against Trump's will c) Supreme Court case law long ago determined that any government involvement in private corporation speech decisions has to be considered to be an unconstitutional government violation of free speech. "Reasonable" is both untrue and immaterial.

Everyone citing "Freedom" here is ignorant of the facts and are going to be unhappy and surprised with how this matter is eventually settled by investigative bodies and courts.