Nice job not even addressing the point. Neither of the tweets were incitements to violence. The Twitter blog post claiming they are violence is factually incorrect and you couldn't address how they are violent which is why you spewed out several paragraphs not related to the topic.

If you think Twitter should have banned Trump for things he said and did off the platform that is fine. The problem is Twitter didn't say they were doing that.

>This is dangerous territory for dialog but I'm going to give it a go the best I can.

What is dangerous? Discussing whether or not a social media company is lying about their reasons for deplatforming?

>The followers of Trump seems like a cult. He was shockingly prescient in his statement about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote.

Will you say the same about Bernie's followers? One of his followers literally tried to kill a congressman (he shot him) likely because Bernie's rhetoric.

>Stochastic terrorism is a real thing, and he's not afraid to engage in it (see his comments about Mitch McConnell and his wife, re: death threats).

And you are engaging in it. You are demonizing Trump's supporters by calling them cultists. This has some level of statistical probability of causing violence. That is the definition of stochastic terrorism.

>His Big Lie has eroded trust in our electoral process and has emboldened a movement to seize control of the process to subvert democracy in the future.

There was massive doubts in previous elections being stolen as well: 2000, 2016, 2018. Is Trump responsible for eroding the trust in the Gore v Bush election?

>I could go on and on, but Trump engages in dangerous speech which should not be amplified, let alone celebrated.

Why didn't Twitter point to those cases? If he only said stuff off Twitter then why is Twitter banning him on platform? Does their TOS say they can do that?

>This is a cherry on top of the right wing movement to demonize the opposition and further ensure the political divide we have today will not heal.

Both sides are clearly demonizing one another. Do you remember Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorables? Or the case I mentioned above with Bernie. The rhetoric on both sides has been intensifying. I think it is bad, but the problem is only criticising one side is not doing anything to heal the divide. If we are going to hold to the standard that off platform demonization should result in a Twitter ban then Clinton and Bernie should be removed from Twitter as well. Since as I pointed out above you are engaging in terrorism you should be removed as well.

>I expect plenty of downvotes and hate for this comment (should it be noticed), but we're in new territory here.

You are likely in the majority position on HN.

>Free speech used to comprise public protest, letters to the editor, publishing books, etc.

Sure.

> Now we have the digital equivalent of IV drug consumption and the corresponding danger of what that brings.

So free speech shouldn't exist on the internet because it is easier to spread. Why not ban free speech with printing presses. That allows content to spread quite fast as well.

>I do believe in the value of having a marketplace of ideas, but I also believe that markets are well-served by proper regulation.

The problem is the false reasons Twitter banned Trump. He wasn't actually banned for the Tweets they claimed. Surely you believe that the "proper regulation" should actually be followed. Trump's tweets were not actually the reason he was banned.

If a person stole something he shouldn't be arrested for murder. That is not proper regulation.