Can you show us any terms of service from any of the platforms you are refering to that includes a paragraph that says something to the effect of "we can ban you for any reason if we feel like it?"

Because that's not how it works. When someone gets suspended, one or several specific rules will be referenced as the reason for the suspension.

Trolls continually find ways to skirt the rules. We could add new paragraphs forever, and never catch up.
At the same time, rules have to be coherant and condensed enough for readers to be able to find what they're looking for with relative ease. And that won't be the case if it's as long as the bible.

If someone says "That's a nice daughter you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to her..."

You could argue that's not against any rules, because they're just showing concern for the daughter.
But it's the intent that matters. In which case it can be a threat.

How we determine whether something is a missunderstanding or malicious is not on a whim. We look at a users post history, and often times we've discussed and kept an eye on the user for months/years before before we see that several dots form a line.

Wasting people's time is one of the most disrespectful ways to behave towards others online.
I am not super familiar with your case. But I do know that several moderators, myself included, reached out to you multiple times beforehand and tried to guide you towards more proper conduct in those threads. And usually when I ask you a direct question about what seems to be the root of a lot of the issues surrounding you, which seems to be how you consume your news (even just a few days ago in the Xbox article when I asked you where you got the idea that Xbox were saying the things you said about Playstation) you tend to not give a direct answer about that.

And so you repeat the process again in another thread. And seemingly this one too, as I'll get to further below.

I do agree that different points of view is important for things like this. Even just in a general sense, another person can catch a detail you missed while brainstorming.
But it's not likely that Elon has gotten to know the moderation team on Twitter (which is also probably massive sonsidering their traffic.)

A PC guy on our staff often gets accused of being biased towards a particular console.
Many times we've been accused of doing A, when we actually did B. For example, someone made a thread a couple of month ago saying that we locked a thread because it was too controversial. They didn't ask any of us, or say it in a speculative way. They just stated that we did.

But we locked the thread at the request of the thread creator himself, who has a right to request a lock.

An outside perspective can often get the wrong idea about how these things are handled if they don't make an effort to get to know the facts first.

Elon Musk decided to buy this company before he could have concievably gotten to know the moderators. And I doubt he had the time to do that afterwards either. But no matter who he puts in charge there, he is still making company wide decisisions himself because he's the majority owner.

A platform that is meant to be welcoming to everyone, cannot also support intolerant people who make others feel unwelcome simply because of how they were born, (for ex LGBT people and people of color) because that creates a paradow where you allowing those people to thrive chase the other people away.

So you have to chose where you draw the line. Do you want the bullies, or the bullied?
Most companies draw a line at discriminating against how people were born.
Regarding disinformation, the line is usually drawn at the point where it is considered harmful.

If you just draw the line at what is or isn't legal, it's going to be a very unbearable experience for most people.

Regarding government involvement pertainign to missinformation, there are laws about that.
Here's one example:

18 U.S. Code § 35 - Imparting or conveying false information

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy"... David Frum

Over 50% Republicans still reject or question the election victory of Biden in 2020

Midterms incoming

Pelosi attacker David DePape was psychotic addict estranged from pedophile lover & kids (nypost.com)

Accused Paul Pelosi attacker David DePape could be deported (cnbc.com)

Don't mind the NY Post headline, it talks much about his likely political views. Plenty more but no need to overdo it

BTW, those weren't my initial sources. My initial sources would very likely have been considered non credible, yet credible sources have covered it. That is of course, if my links are from credible sources. I guess we'll see. RolStoppable made sure to include the credibility factor, as that's typically the excuse given as to why certain sources findings of facts aren't useful. What's a credible source and what isn't seems to change sometimes and is difficult to pin down here.

That’s somewhat true even going by Trumpists (I won’t call them Conservatives) on this forum. There were posts from some of them earlier suggesting that Republican states should rebel against the US with the purpose of separating from the country if the Democratic Party wins the midterms.

Of course, that might just be the Trumpists, I don’t think all Conservatives here are like that, but some of them are—and I’d probably call those sorts something other than Conservative, separatism is about as anti-Conservative as you can get.

It's pretty hard to counter the culprit's own blog when determining his political views.

Regarding credible sources, it isn't difficult to determine what's credible and what is not. The first thing that stuck out in the New York Post link was the headline tag "Opinion" which is generally used to separate proper journalism from a mere opinion piece that isn't obligated to stick to all the facts at hand. Said opinion published in the NYP has a clear direction of proving something while leaving out the most crucial piece of evidence, which is the culprit's own blog. If the NYP were convinced that the author's work is credible, then the publication wouldn't separate itself from the author, because that's the point of labeling something as an opinion: The written piece does not reflect the stance of the publication, but solely the author's.

The CNBC article is proper journalism, but it makes no mention of a possible left-leaning political affiliation of the culprit. I can only guess that you think that someone who could be deported must automatically be a supporter of the democrats.

Where in their blog does it state that what's being said is the truth about what they think and is completely in line with their thoughts and beliefs?

Are we to assume that a comedians blog is true and factual and that the dark jokes they're making are actually their real thoughts and beliefs? If they mention some of their real life issues and grievances, some being serious, are we to assume they're just jokes and to take them as such, so no big deal?

He's an illegal immigrant from Canada living in California. It's well known even conservative Canadians tend to line up better with American Democrats. It's well known that Democrats prefer to allow way more immigrants, legal or not, into the country than Republicans, along with the sanctuary cities they can stay and be safer in. It's well known that Democrats want to give everyone living in the US the right to vote, even if they're not an official citizen, or to simply make everyone an official citizen. If most of those immigrants were going to vote Republican, do we really think the Republicans would be more cautious, while the Democrats are trying to let as many in as possible and protect them by whatever extra means?

Since he's Candian, the automatic assumption would be he's liberal. He's also from province of British Columbia, which makes it far more likely he's liberal, or at least has a far more socialist viewpoint like our NDP Party that wins there. His neighbors say he seems very left. He's into weed and hemp, lgbt, BLM, agree's with Colbert against Bush, says things like "Jesus is the Anti Christ", and got married nude in a courthouse.

This screams MAGA conservative? It doesn't even whisper it.

So to summarize, we are now supposed to think that the culprit's own blog was a work of comedy. Nevermind that he broke into the house of Pelosi with the intent of making her confess all the lies of the democratic party. As if that would be something that a supporter of the policies of the democrats would do. Planned attacks on politicians are pretty much always committed by someone who believes in the values of an opposing political party.

The US Government is dysfunctional on purpose. Can you imagine how bad things would be if the most powerful country in the world in almost every aspect that matters had an efficient and effective government? It was never designed to be functional, just to work well enough not to tank everything before we could vote idiots out. It's a good thing we have the greatest land in the world (more navigable water than the rest of the world combined for example). The US is the greatest country because of the land we live on not the people who live on that land. We literally can't screw up... and we've tried... real, real hard

I basically see two points that the NY Post is bringing up.

Random posts that they think say something about politics:

>But DePape’s politics have little rhyme or reason. In past years DePape shared a post about Stephen Colbert’s 2006 roast of President George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents dinner; linked to videos of Disney films altered to make it look like the characters were swearing; and claimed, “Jesus is the anti-Christ” — not exactly a litany of right-wing tropes.

And neighbor's views on them. 

First bit is problematic. What political alignment does "Stephen Colbert roasting of George Bush" suggest? At the time Stephen Colbert was very well liked by conservatives because they thought he was one. He was a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to satirize conservatives. 

It's just so filled with bizarre ideas of like "conservatives don't do drugs or dislike Jesus." Lots of statements that just aren't true, or don't seem to have any political alignment whatsoever. 

Do you think that conservatives can't have crazy ideas about who Jesus is? One of my previous coworkers literally believes that Dr. Fauci is literally the anti-christ. Do you think that Atheists can't be politically conservative?

Conservatives also don't get abortions, because they're pro-life, except when they do, because they think their abortions are different, they are justified. 

I have incredibly conservative family members that do drugs.

There are also conservatives who live off welfare. They just think that their circumstances make welfare justifiable. 

And you'll also find that some illegal immigrants are conservatives. They also think their particular circumstances makes it justifiable. 

It's a big reason why conservatives get called hypocrites and selfish. Because even if/when there aren't any differences between how liberals and conservatives act in their daily lives (whether it's drug use, abortion rates, welfare, etc), conservatives will frequently view their actions as being better/justifiable. They're "hard working Americans down on their luck. They're not like those other people that are getting so much out of the system even though they could be working instead".

But I'm getting away from a very important point. It doesn't really matter if he was a leftist or if he was a centrist with lots of right wing and left wing positions. What exactly pushed him over the edge? He wasn't in Nancy's house because he supported her positions so strongly.

On a related note, you seem to have completely skipped over the part where Elon Musk shared a tweet that alleged that this man was Pelosi's gay lover, and that it was a dispute that they had.

It doesn't seem to bother you that Elon Musk tweeted out such a claim.

Or you know, don't make any assumptions whatsoever and look at the facts. 

So, there's no conservatives who don't like Trump? No conservatives bash Trump or vote against him, or refused to vote for him? As if a conservative could be against Trump and his policies. Same for liberals as to Clinton or Biden, or in this case Pelosi.

Just because he may have taken it further and physically went after one of his own, doesn't mean he couldn't be on the same side. As if a husband would ever murder his wife, or vice versa. Isn't marriage a union? Aren't couples on the same side? Most of the time isn't always.

Comedian was an example. The point how do we know that he meant what he said? Furthermore, there is nothing guaranteeing that mindset, if they are his true beliefs, is coming from a clear conservative viewpoint. Even if Q is what triggered him, Q names both Democrats and Republicans, along with non politicians, so how would that put him on the other side?

I find it quite odd that nothings been said about his mental stability, that he may be a bit, or very, mentally unstable, and it just might not have anything to do with his political affiliation. How would that have helped make conservatives look bad though?