On January 8, in the aftermath of the Capitol riots, Twitter permanently banned the accounts of Donald Trump and several Q-anon conspiracists while Apple and Google removed the Parler app from their stores, reportedly upon pressure from U.S. lawmakers.

While I must admit I'm uncomfortable with what could be seen as a starkly partisan act that smacks of Fascism, when I look at what has transpired in context I really must agree with their decisions.

First of all, Donald Trump has never lost a vote without claiming fraud. He claimed fraud when the Apprentice didn't win the 2004 & 2005 Emmy Awards. He claimed fraud after the 2016 Iowa caucuses, etc., etc. It's his modus operandi response to losing.

There have been 62 lawsuits filed which claim that the 2020 Presidential election was illegitimate, and all but one were dismissed. Their arguments were pathetic, and the lawyers involved should have been sanctioned. To give you just a small glimpse as to just how bad these cases were presented, click through and read this Twitter thread.

I don't want to get bogged down rehashing all the bogus evidence, the long and short of it is that these lawsuits were not intended to be won. They were intended to whip Republicans into a frenzy, and keep them agitated.

It was a fundraising con job. At first it was reported that up to 60% of donations could go to President Trump's campaign fund and the RNC, but then we learned there is no "Election Defense Fund."

Since the election, his fundraising team has sent more than 550 fundraising emails and almost 200 SMS text messages. It amassed at least $250 million dollars for Trump and the RNC. But that's not all, the Save America PAC pulled in half a billion dollars.

The only fraud committed here is the grifting done by Trump in order to bilk his supporters of about 3/4 billion dollars.

But like a child who doesn't know when to stop, Trump continued to goad his supporters to keep them incensed. He chose to use his Twitter megaphone to stoke the fires of their anger, with dire consequences for 5 Americans.

The first thing many of us noticed during Wednesday's riot was the paucity of law enforcement present versus a typical BLM rally, or the March 2007 peace rally led by veterans. This event was not a surprise, it was promoted by the President himself. So where was the National Guard? Why hadn't they been deployed in advance? There needs to be an investigation into this lapse of security, which must have been decided at the highest levels of our government.

The thing that angers me most is the lack of leadership, responsibility and maturity, traded in lieu of personal gain. But that has always been the Trump way.

There is a law, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act, which a) indemnifies hosts of social media sites from the content posted by its users, and b) grants those hosts the right to censor, delete or ban content at their discretion.

Actions have consequences. Just as it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, so too must there be restrictions on broadcasting lies to millions of people, and if you read the Twitter terms of service, there are such restrictions.

But Twitter also has a policy of not taking action on tweets from public figures, particularly political figures. This is in the public interest to see the candid side of our leaders.

It could be argued that many of President Trump's tweets during the past year would have violated Twitter's COVID-19 misinformation policy. Countless accounts have been suspended for repeating similar information.

It should be noted that Twitter gauges the potential damage caused by a tweet not merely upon the words published, but also how those words will be interpreted and acted upon by the public.

So you see, Trump was given a lot of leeway already as to what is deemed acceptable. Twitter has also considered how his role as a politician (I balk at the use of 'leader') allows him exceptional behavior.

At some point we must ask, 'how much is too much?' At what point does public safety trump (if you'll excuse the tainted phrase) the public's right to be know a politician's innermost thinking?

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.

Most states have a law which says that if a person is killed during the commission of a felony, all co-conspirators involved in that felony should be held accountable. I would argue that Trump fraudulently acquired hundreds of millions of dollars by falsely asserting then 2020 elections were rigged.

From where I'm sitting, Trump was afforded every exception to spew his vitriol and sow division. As a result, Trump profited and people died. I'm totally O.K. with Twitter giving him the boot.

As for Parler, let me remind you of Robert Bowers, the gunman who shot up a Pittsburgh Synagogue in 2018. He was active on Gab, a rightwing echo chamber which normalized far right reactionary points of view, and he posted his intentions to do harm on that site. Surely Mr. Bowers would have found a different place to foment his inner demons if there hadn't been a Gab, but I'll argue that it was the community of reactionary voices, without even a sole lone dissenter, which gave rise to the idea that he could, and should, commit a mass homicide. I will shed no tears for Parler.