The “no one elected Twitter to make these decisions” argument is completely irrelevant in today’s world and economy. Millions and millions of people decide to use Twitter, and agree to its rules. Twitter can absolutely enforce those as it likes.

The issue here, which many people are trying to skirt around with whataboutary or technical arguments is; do you continually let someone/anyone use the platform and then pick n mix having to take those messages down, or do you ban/suspend them from using it in the first place.

If you have a view that the President is above that principal aka the rules and the law because it’s in the public interest, I think you are missing the gravity of what the President did. And maybe then, the issue is the President, not the platform.

I absolutely think Twitter needs to speed up taking action on others who fit this category: foreign I democratic government accounts which have repeatedly used the platform to espouse conspiracy and propaganda and dictators for one.

But the idea the platform can’t take action against the President before it has taken action against everyone else is nonsense. Risk and reach factors - but at the heart of this is Twitter’s own response as a company about to face an incoming administration miffed by its record.

Simply put - Twitter is a company about to face the consequences of years of inaction by exactly the people elected who’s job it is to scrutinise and legislate. If you think they should do something about it speak to, lobby and campaign to them.