The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderat

The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been). You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead. You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation. So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.