that's just legalism and appeal to practice.

both are forms of fallacy when addressing the question of "should?"

twitter is not a "public square" or a "public utility" dependent upon government rights of way or monopoly.

it's a private business.

it is not a "modern day public square" because it is not owned by the public.

it's a private park open by invite only.

you're basically advocating the public seizure of businesses because they have become useful and widely used.

i don't think that's a road you want to go down.

claiming "that's the law" or "they did it to this guy so we can do it again" fails to speak to the terribly ethical and economic precedent such actions represent.

it also prevents the real adaptation that needs to occur and traps the internet in an awkward adolescence.

i lay this argument out more thoroughly here:

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/a-cats-tale-how-getting-canceled