It's kind of a truism these days that whenever people are blocked or banned on social media, they blame it on some underlying conspiracy to ban their version of political thought. Another commenter put it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818108

"It only seems that way to you because you’re seeing only one side getting arbitrarily suspended."

Good catch I should have looked into that a little deeper. It might be a case of confirmation bias.

There is one point that Tim Pool made that I think still stands. you have to moderate such that all content is within the Overton window. Only the left and right have different views on what does and does not fit inside this window. For example right wingers want to argue about the role of trans rights in womens sports. Much of the left and Twitter consider this to be outside of the Overton window.

This could easily be established with some examples showing these "accidents" are spread equally across the political spectrum?

I literally posted just a few comments up a story about people on the left complaining they were banned on Facebook from discussing racism. But anecdotes are relatively useless, another commenter posted an actual study showing there is no anti-conservative bias.

But even the conspiratorial mindset that "Oh look, this accident must be deliberate!!" is really annoying because it completely ignores the consequences of the mistake. Ron Paul (or anyone) not being able to post for a few hours is some big abuse of power, when none of his existing posts were unreadable? I've had power outages in urban settings that lasted longer.

For organizations that donate 95% towards one political party, some how they have managed to be extra-ordinarily neutral. If that is your thesis - I disagree.