Partly maybe, but for most it‘s too little, too late. Banning him for two of his weakest tweets on a history of four years of inciting hatred, bigotism and violence does not put a good light on Twitter.

This smells like some extremely transparent opportunism after all they‘ve earned with 45.

Basically, it's the loud uncle who's been screaming nonsense the whole dinner party, and now he's just shoved you and you fell down. The host told him to go to the other room and take 10 minutes to calm down. Now he comes back and returns to screaming...

I couldn't have said it any better. It's pure opportunism and moral grandstanding.

The problem is half the country sees the world in a different way. They already are yelling "censorship".

As a matter of fact this is censorship.

That's a matter of opinion.

The strongest part of it seems to be that they cite specific activity on Twitter to organise a second attack on the Capitol which is directly linked to these tweets. It seems reasonable to me on the basis that they are basing their actions on actual risk of actual violence occurring as a result of statements. So they have ignored everything up to now because there was not tangible evidence that violence could result. They're now in a position where there is tangible evidence that violence is a realistic outcome from Trump's words, and this has altered their interpretation of his statements generally.

I have wondered this for the last few years, but why do people refer to Trump as 45? No other president that I can recall has been referred index number of their presidency, I do not see people calling President Obama "44" or President Bush "43"

it is odd to me

I definitely recall Bush being referred to as "43", especially to distinguish him from 41.

Even among the two of them, they used these as nicknames.

It lead to a lot of discussion of Grover Cleveland back in the day.

Thanks, I wonder if that is origin of the usage..

Hmm... might be!

As others have pointed out, Twitter put Trump on notice that another violation would result in a permanent ban.

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to mention "the left" in this context. Are you implying that Twitter wants to curry favor with the left? Or perhaps that if the left is happy, then it's a bad thing? I feel like there is some subtext that you might as well just spell out.