Is it not a little bit patronising that American companies think they can regulate political speech in Brazil? It's quite clear they don't think they can regulate political speech in the US. What exactly is the difference?
If the US did that, they could be a force for good. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
I am not trying to be argumentative here but the question stands, treating one and another politician with a different set of parameters is a bit weird.
BTW, I disagree with both of them. I am not trying to defend one or another.
Once upon a time, I was aware of a similar problem on another social network.
The trouble was, a senior elected official in the US was violating the terms and conditions of the site.
The solution: create an exemption for them.
Let's be honest, doing this in Brazil is pretty low-risk for Twitter, doing it in the US could be existential.
I'm sure the President of Brazil can manage to find a way to convey his message other than Twitter. Thus it's not like Bolsonaro was placed under a gag order.
If you want to use a third-party service then you comply with the end user agreement presented by the third party. If you don't agree then that's ok, just get one that you're ok with.
You don't agree with the rules? That's ok, just use a service you're ok with.
Do you honestly believe that the President of Brazil lacks the means to brief the citizens of Brazil of his political views and opinions?
Think again, they DO censor political speech in the US, specifically one side's political speech. This is especially clear for Twitter but also present on many other social media channels.