Why are you reposting this multiple times? It's not the end run you think it is: long after that point Musk declared grandly that he would not ban the account because of his stance on free speech.
Elon Musk was already on the record as seeing the safety of children as a limit to free speech.
Jack Sweeney's efforts to deanonymize the plane could be seen as inciting the following of Musk's two year-old child and the ambush of their vehicle.
If the deanonymisation that Jack Sweeney is said to be doing can be argued to be a protected form of free speech, it must also be open to inquiries over whether it is incitement towards violence now that it has resulted in a plausible threat to a life.
Frequently people use combinations of difficult-to-find publicly available information and educated guesswork to locate people and then repackage this information as a "dox" for their followers. Not all of their followers have good intentions and even if they don't literally tell people to intimidate/scare/attack their target, they must eventually be seen as somewhat liable for the actions of their followers once they're aware of them. (Isn't this similar to the argument made about Trump's tweets before he was banned?)
Hopefully, as a private company, Twitter can establish sensible public policy about what speech is allowed or banned and where these lines are.
Also, this application of the rules is completely in line with original policy about inciting harm, and as a private company, Twitter is well within their right to deplatform users that don't follow their rules.
What seems capricious to many right now might actually be even-handed enforcement of pre-existing rules towards people that had gotten used to special treatment. And if it's not even-handed I don't see how anything has changed from before, where some people were given a free pass from the rules while others weren't -- the only difference is who is blessed and who is cursed.
There are written rules about inciting harassment and posting private information/locations without express approval. Ignorance of the rules shouldn't excuse people from following the rules.
It's not whataboutism to point out that these policies existed previously, and that if there are any differences at all it's that the rules weren't always applied for this violation previously. The fact is, certain Twitter accounts used to get a free pass -- I feel like the modern adage "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" applies.
(Do I believe what I'm saying? Basically, it's one way of looking at things and I think that while this interpretation of the rules and their application is unproven and counter-narrative it is a viable argument that I expect Twitter to make as the new moderation team grows.)
