Can you prove incitement? Because Twitter certainly did not list out any convincing evidence in their blog post about the ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), instead sheepishly offering up Trump's absence at the inauguration as evidence. It's hard to blame Trump for the Jan 6th riots when 10000 people showed up at his rally that day and only a couple hundred at most went past the capitol barricades. But simply breaching the barriers is not really a big deal - leftist activists have raided the capitol several times in the last decade as part of their own political activism. So let's focus on those who didn't just trespass but committed other crimes like theft, vandalism, and assault. I bet that number is less than 50.

So to summarize, Trump delivers a speech, he explicitly calls for a peaceful protest (visible in transcripts), and a very very small number of people break the law. That doesn't sound like incitement - it sounds to me like a few individuals made bad decisions and hold personal responsibility for their own actions and should be held accountable. But no court has found Trump guilty of incitement, and I bet none ever will - the evidence is simply not there.

As for Twitter - their power and influence is larger than most governments, and they should not be making unilateral decisions judging incitement and instituting bans of public figures. They operate the new public town square - and they need to be regulated like a public entity. or just nationalized like a utility and required to uphold the first amendment. And other leaders like Macron (https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-twitter...) and Merkel (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...) are absolutely correct to be alarmed at the reckless actions and immense power of American tech giants, who are ideologically very biased.