It is disingenuous to say those tweets are "simply innocuous" without the context of what was going on and what the President did that very day.
I've posted this before, and while I agree that those are far from his most egregious tweets, given the fact of the insurrection at the Capitol, the ban doesn't seem unjustified at all. Especially since there are now many videos coming out from the insurrection of the rioters believing they are acting in accordance with Trump's wishes.
For the sake of argument, Ok. I'll not argue with that. I shall assume that the context of the situation justified the ban.
But why then did Twitter quote two tweets? The tweets do not support the decision. They could just have said "based on context off Twitter, we are banning Trump".
The fact that they didn't makes me think they were scrambling and not thinking clearly. Their reading of the tweets is bizarre. Or maybe they being dishonest about their reasoning.
Because those two tweets, and the video, were both offering tacit support to people violently attacking the US Capitol and continuing to promote the egregious lie and conspiracy theory of a stolen election that was driving the attack in the first place.
What made those tweets untenable was the changed circumstances of the attack on the Capitol and the knowledge that those engaged in it were relying on Trump's support and encouragement.
I dunno, the further we get from the Capitol Hill riot, the harder I think it will be to sustain the argument that "I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." can only be interpreted as "violently seize control of the American government". Those are going to be famous last words if ever there are any.
If you were going to put % chances that he was speaking literally, what would you put them at? Surely you'd agree there is at least a chance he was just stream-of-conciousness tweeting what he was thinking?
I don’t think you can wave away the impact of Trumps words, even if he didn’t intend violence. His audience interpreted approval. That’s what matters. To disagree is to be deliberately ignorant or to argue in bad faith.
That is a totally unreasonable standard that would speak very clearly of a bias (if that is what Twitter thought, which I doubt). It isn't being applied to politicians at all evenly, it is only being applied to Trump. If the speakers intentions and literal words don't matter, and they are to be judged by the most extreme fringes of their supporters then no politician is going to be allowed to speak.
I've posted this before, and while I agree that those are far from his most egregious tweets, given the fact of the insurrection at the Capitol, the ban doesn't seem unjustified at all. Especially since there are now many videos coming out from the insurrection of the rioters believing they are acting in accordance with Trump's wishes.