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.
Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.
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.
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.)