I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs. Also the actions of the company.
> It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim.
It is. If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. This is the heart of accessibility. Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility.
> Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities.
The Twitter human rights & accessibility team also includes "human rights". Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. The "human rights & accessibility" team failed to do their job of upholding the human rights of those who were banned for political speech.