Twitter should have banned Trump once it became clear that he had lost the election, if not much earlier. His Twitter account serves no unique public benefit; h

Twitter should have banned Trump once it became clear that he had lost the election, if not much earlier. His Twitter account serves no unique public benefit; he is the one person in the country who could make a public statement for immediate dissemination on national television any day of the week. Twitter did not need to serve as the petri dish wherein Trump's pustulence festers and spreads. They did it for the financial benefits. > "5. Why not ban the CCP or Ayatollah Khomenei or many of the other odious and even genocidal characters who populate Twitter today? This tweet still stands: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562." Well...why not? Ban 'em! > "6. This summer, Slate and many other media organizations condoned violence in explicit terms. Murders are in fact up a great deal this year. Given that incitement to violence is manifestly acceptable to Twitter in many cases, can you articulate the relevant standard in more detail?" This is a train of spurious claims. Slate wouldn't agree that it explicitly condoned violence, and the suggestion of a causal link between Slate/others and murders is absolutely baseless. The false equivalency between public resistance to police murder and overt insurrection is not worthy of serious consideration. Twitter would not say that it manifestly accepts incitement to violence in any case, and the question at the end is so vague as to be meaningless.