Clearly twitter is in the wrong here. But making a fundamentalist point about every minor issue you encounter isn't ideal either. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect people to pick their battles, rather than expect the whole world to organize around protecting their ego even in clearly irrelevant cases.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the policies that caused this. But I have no illusions that there are any policies that would be perfect, nor that the tradeoffs here are trivial.

If everybody tried to be this fundamentalist, we'd still be stuck in caves fighting about whose corner is whose. There's a balance between avoiding erosion of sound principles, and being part of a large, constructive collective.

So this battle is fine as long as were clear what it's about: the principle; not the specific post. And as such: being forced to do _anything_ with respect to that specific post isn't worth quibbling about. It's a fine example to get people talking, and that's it. If the author is personally harmed by is sudden lack of access to twitter, then he should consider choosing not to fight on this detail. It's a cute cat video, not a whistleblower talking about grave misconduct or whatever.

The author is prevented from posting a cookie cutter video clip from a game, not even some kind of actual self-expression. That's not inhumane; it's a complete triviality. If you can't make the case for why Twitter is in the wrong without these competely absurd exaggerations about inhumane treatement and damaging humans, maybe you need to admit that you don't actually have a case.