Many people look on Twitter first. Brazil could therefore argue Twitter is interfering with government communication in a time of national emergency. That carries a very high penalty in many countries. Besides, this is like the phone company refusing you service because you swore on a call.

I guess the question is: why don't they censor Trump / Pelosi / etc for example?

> I guess the question is: why don't they censor Trump / Pelosi / etc for example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

This is a fair question.

Once upon a time, I was aware of a similar problem on another social network.

The trouble was, a senior elected official in the US was violating the terms and conditions of the site.

The solution: create an exemption for them.

Let's be honest, doing this in Brazil is pretty low-risk for Twitter, doing it in the US could be existential.

That's a bad answer. Double standards are a problem and deserve to be called out. Twitter punches when it thinks someone can't punch back.

Can't it get more whataboutists than just using a link on whataboutism?

I am not trying to be argumentative here but the question stands, treating one and another politician with a different set of parameters is a bit weird.

BTW, I disagree with both of them. I am not trying to defend one or another.