I've heard of Twitter accounts getting banned because they mentioned some of these subjects in context of criticizing them. (which is the opposite result that would be expected)
How their curation process work is just as important as the rules themselves. If it's transparent and there's a person (not just an automated algorithm), is there also a recourse process for false positives or bad decision making?
(the key part of my concern)
Here's an example of the difficulty.
"Phil, can you review the article [link to blog] where you banned us from? We are critically analyzing a very socially sensitive topic and while we are disagreeing with the majority of people, we actually encouraging unity and are not encouraging any hate. You can clearly see if you read our entire article."
Or, "I only linked to Trump's tirade to point out how insane it is. Can you re-read my article....?"
My comment above is the very reason for this discussion. Not using the site is the same as suggesting not commenting here, which is nearly nonsensical.