So you don't have a source to back up your claim.
> Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue
It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim.
Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities.
You do not have a source. Someone said "many @ Twitter" share their beliefs is not the accessibility team. You're just making a guess.
> If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person.
Sure, by definition you can't access a site you are banned from. But that's not what accessibility is and that is not what the accessibility department was working on.
> If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality.
Yes it does violate any form of platform neutrality. That still has nothing to do with the actual definition of what accessibility includes.
> Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility.
That's absurd. Accessibility already has a definition and it's quite specific: it's about disabled people. You are free to re-define words, but folks are also free to ignore your personal definitions.
> Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating.
I don't agree with you that they have been violating anyone's free speech but what does this have to do with your original claim that "the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars"?
Where is your evidence of the accessibility doing that?
Not kicking up shit, genuinely curious why you'd have a separate team work on that, seems like something every engineer needs to know (at least on the frontend) for an app like Twitter.