That is giving "kill all men" a metaphorical reading. That is a fair reading, it probably isn't actually a call to violence, they just feel frustrated about something.

The issue is that a fair reading is not being applied evenly. Twitter interprets "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th" [0] as a call to violence. That isn't even close to a fair metaphorical reading, and it was probably meant literally.

[0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

The post made clear that it wasn't about the tweet itself, but the broader context and how the tweet was being interpreted by communities who sought to do harm.

You can argue that's not fair to Trump, and don't pretend his accounts were banned for the literal meaning of the words, when the post you linked to makes clear the thinking behind the decision.

This is the “video games cause violence argument”

That is no way comparable. This would be like if there was a video game where you killed politicians with machetes and then suddenly a bunch of politicians were killed in machete attacks.

At that point, you wouldn’t be able to say the video game was not a cause. This is not blaming Trump for abstract violence in general, but for specific violence that he called for actually happening.

Right, but the violence actually happened. If we suddenly had people reading the #killallmen hashtag as literal, and start killing men, then Twitter would likely ban it. Once Trump’s tweets led to an actual terrorist attack, they banned him.

It is not a perfect system, but I think banning based on result is not an unfair system.

It is still a very direct call to violence.

Is it a credible call to violence, or is it more of a figure of speech?

I’d say that Trump’s calls to violence are pretty credible.

which message from trump was a call to violence? Genuinely asking as I probably haven't followed this whole mess as closely as I could've