Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.
Still doesn't resolve the question of deplatforming and banning though. There's still considerable inconsistency at play here, with people like Dorsey saying social media is a human right, and then exiling people with no transparent "due process" or recourse for making amends. As deplorably as we treat our criminals, they eventually serve their term and regain (most) of their freedoms (and arguably, should regain them all).
You’re suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent? That should be obviously absurd when you consider that a social network’s audience spans multiple countries’ justice systems.
I'm questioning the premise that "speech deterrence is needed at all, or that it's a good idea even in principle.
If you're not inciting violence, which is violence and so against the law, then what justification is there for censoring speech? These companies that provide free services are censoring for optics, with a purely profit-motive to placate advertisers. This motive will not discriminate solely against hate speech, but anything even remotely controversial will eventually be censored, and these services will become the same bland pablum we've had on cable TV for decades, reducing the rich and diverse tapestry of online content we've enjoyed for decades.
Furthermore, considering how influential social media is, by encouraging this type of censorship, we are creating new social norms whereby large corporations are now essentially permitted to overtly meddle in our elections. Where's the oversight for this? Already considerable evidence exists that conservative viewpoints are censored more widely.
The motive on the part of activists pushing this is that the internet is "spreading hate", that it's led to an increase in radicalization and violence, etc. Except there's precious little evidence this is the case.
Studies actually done on radicalization [1] show the internet increases opportunities for radicalization simply because you're exposed to so many diverse viewpoints, and it creates an echo chamber effect because you then follow only the sources that reinforce your bias, but they do not find evidence for accelerating the process of radicalization, for radicalization without physical contact, and for self-radicalization.
The narrative spun is that right-wing terrorism is increasing in the US [2], therefore the echo chambers from these internet sites is at least partly responsible. Except that doesn't explain why the US's rates are rising while the rest of the world's rates are falling. This speaks to local circumstances driving the increase in violence.
All in all, there seems to be considerable danger to encouraging these corporations to make up their own rules and censor without oversight, and there are few upsides that I can see. It might make some people feel like they've "done something", but there's precious little evidence that these measures are effective or even necessary.
[1] https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...
[2] https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-fueled...