Twitter issued a permanent ban against the U.S. president on Friday, significantly restricting his means of communicating with his audience. This action, taken in response to his support of the forceful breach of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, may appear abrupt to those unfamiliar with his history on the platform.

However, Twitter had previously extended numerous opportunities for correction to President Trump throughout his term in office, maintaining his account on the grounds that public discourse involving global leaders is valuable, even when it contravenes established guidelines.

With Trump now definitively removed, we gain valuable insight into the deliberations that culminated in Twitter’s decision to impose the ban on Friday. The company initially announced the suspension via a series of posts from its @TwitterSafety account and further elaborated on its rationale in a detailed blog post.

Within this comprehensive explanation, the company clarified that it had granted Trump a final opportunity following a temporary suspension and subsequent reinstatement of his account for earlier infractions on Wednesday. Nevertheless, two subsequent tweets authored by the president led to the ultimate decision. Twitter stated that these tweets, displayed below, were evaluated not in isolation, but within the broader context of his recent actions and the events of the week.

“… We have concluded that these Tweets violate our policy regarding the Glorification of Violence, and therefore the account @realDonaldTrump should be permanently suspended from the service,” Twitter stated.

This justification is fairly straightforward, although those who strongly support the president may not concur. In the final analysis, these determinations, despite being based on defined policies, necessitate considerable subjective assessment and interpretation. Despite efforts by social media companies to delegate these difficult choices to automated systems, ultimate responsibility rests with individuals who must determine the most appropriate course of action.

Twitter’s explanation provides an unusual level of transparency into the processes by which social networks determine content moderation. This represents a substantial step for Twitter – one that many believe should have been taken considerably earlier – and it is beneficial to have this typically opaque, high-level decision-making process articulated openly and publicly.