You seem to be confusing Twitter with the polity and the public commons. Twitter is a public corporation, eg a business. Businesses have the right to kick out a

You seem to be confusing Twitter with the polity and the public commons. Twitter is a public corporation, eg a business. Businesses have the right to kick out anyone they feel is engaging in behavior that they feel hurts their relationship with other customers. Twitter decided (roughly speaking) that the PR fallout from a high-profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter over harassment was worse than the PR provoked by banning a Breitbart columnist, who had a reputation for being a bit of a troll. There is nothing that prevents Twitter from making this decision. There is nothing preventing those that disagree with this decision from starting their own social network. I'm not sure how you are so certain that the official story is wrong. Have you considered the other possibility -- that some trolls are trying to use a political position as a smokescreen for justifying harassment? Have you considered that probably a big part of the equation is that a high profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter was quite a big story, and Twitter -- who if you recall has a reputation for harboring bullies -- needed to respond? Really, only Twitter knows the full details, and that's fine. It's their network. But I do know that most major conservative figures that have Twitter accounts have not had their accounts suspended, and some people have been suspended who are not conservative. So I'm very skeptical that the Official Story "is of course wrong" without actual evidence, not conjecture. Yes, conservatives are roughly half the nation. But there are many varieties of conservatives. For a start, I would venture that many, if not most, conservatives (or liberals or moderates or whatever) would not approve of trolling, bullying, and harassment. So be careful with that assertion.