Yes. Spike Lee for one:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense...

He tweeted the home address of a person who happened to share the same last name as an unpopular person in the news, inviting people to attack this person, causing this person to have to move for his own protection. He was never banned from Twitter for this. Disgusting.

The opposite, I would like to see fewer people banned, on all sides.

I know personally a large number of people banned for expressing pretty mainstream right-leaning beliefs on the platform.

I also know people who have declared that we should kill Trump's children who my report on that went nowhere.

Here is a serious New York Times editorial suggesting that Donald Trump be banned from Twitter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.h...

I think everyone reading this honestly knows there was a serious chance that a liberal employee at Twitter would do that as a political statement. (I would have disagreed with that action.)

There is, obviously, no chance that Obama's Twitter would be banned.

This is clearly "out of balance".

I don't think Republicans having a stake in Twitter would improve this situation, though.

Also in this specific example, the ban did not happen.

(Just answering the question.)

As you conclude , neither was banned. As such no conclusions can be drawn about the biases or lack of it at Twitter based on that evidence. Not sure why you then go on to do so.

Let's keep this civil.

You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur.

Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it.

Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.)

Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question.

EDIT:

So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense.

So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.

Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned?

Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.

>Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned?

I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.)

This is the balance that I referred to.