My response was directly to your quote,

"restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments."

As the other commenter said, Trump’s comments were confused at best, and Twitter didn’t actually cite them in their ban. They had a convoluted explanation of how his tweets were actually coded messages.

Even if they did cite his speech as a reason, looking at it as a single event is sort of missing the point. They engaged in similar behavior for years beforehand.

The bias is against electoral manipulation and fake news. Hence the "hacked" materials removal.

> The policy on “hacked” materials is a good example that was selectively applied only against one side.

On the side that pushes fake news, yes. That's a good bias to have.

There were plenty of situations in which the information was clearly gained illegally (or totally made up), but since it made Trump look bad, it was allowed. His tax returns, for example.

As I said, if you think one side is somehow unbiased and just, you aren’t paying attention.

Here are 11 examples of when this very thing happened, one of which is of course Trump's tax returns: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax...