The President put out a video asking people, in plain language, to go home and co-operate with Capitol police. In this same video he reaffirmed his contention that the election was fraudulent, and said that the protesters were loved. Whether he did this sincerely or as a ploy to increase the likelihood of being obeyed, nobody can say without mind reading powers.
One camp will say this video can be interpreted as harmful because it contains the claim that the election was fraudulent
Another camp will say you are allowed to hold the position that the election was fraudulent and at the same time condemn violence.
Twitter has chosen to interpret the video to say that there is a risk of violence despite a plain spoken appeal against violence. They are essentially interpreting the meaning of the message in a way that is contrary to the plain language used in the video.
In such a scenario I would probably not treat it as a rule, since this kind of rule can be made up spontaneously and can be used to stop anyone from saying anything really.
I think it should not be celebrated when a corporation decides to enforce arbitrary rules based on its own interpretations of someone else's plain words.
I'm all for it, but I recognise what is also happening as a result.
While in the above case it's the corporation pulling its own ad, and in the Facebook case they're a platform, the end result is the same. Some activist group tells the advertiser not to advertise because their ad equates them to X and X is bad, here are a bajillion deeply offended people.
At Facebook you have employees colluding with activist groups giving them tips on how best they can "effect change" on Facebook policy. Which advertisers to target, which controversies to use in their activism. It's all to bring about the desired political outcome of some radicals - limit the reach of my political enemy or their strongest arguments.
In the USA the religious group doing the activism is not Christianity anymore - back in the 70s and 80s the Christian lobby had the same degree of influence over TV show content. Today there is a secular belief system occupying that same position, with the opposing political party at the helm, much like the religious right of a few decades ago.
This nation was not formed to protect your speech from the ire public opinion, it was formed to protect it from states, the power that holder monopoly over forceful power.
If this was the country our textbooks say it is, this would be celebrated as an example of how egalitarian the country is.
There are a lot of countries where this wouldn't be possible, and Americans should be glad we aren't at that point (yet, at least).