> as if to imply that being a sitting President gives Trump greater legal right to a social media account

That's not what they're implying.

The implication is that if they can do it to the office-holder of one of the most powerful jobs in the world, they are very powerful and can do it to you.

> the narrative of social media being an organized supranational conspiracy

When lots of social media companies do the same thing at the same time, what other explanation is there?