That'd be Raúl Castro (Cuba for the unaware).

It's still there: https://twitter.com/POTUS

Just to keep things in perspective, Twitter was founded in like 2006 so Twitter has only lived through 3 presidents.

If I incite a mob to march on the seat of government, commit acts of sedition against The United States, and directly threaten the peaceful transfer of power, and refuse to abide by the terms of service, I deserve _a lot_ more than being banned from my social media site. You have to look at it in context.

Any leader inciting insurrection against their own country should be banned.

You know what? I don't think anyone I would support has a problem clearing that very low bar.

Maybe people should be less concerned that Trump got banned for being a lying, traitorous piece of shit and more concerned that he was ever president in the first place.

This power has been used in ways I disagree with since before Trump ran for office. I still prefer a rules-based society to anarchy.

However, I also prefer anarchy to oligarchy: People have even specifically demonstrated that Trump was receiving special privileges which prevented him from being banned, and they did so by getting themselves banned for tweeting copies of his tweets.

Surely there is an important difference between just not conceding and actively campaigning false allegations of voter fraud.

Do they have to incite a mob to overtake the halls of a separate and equal branch of our government resulting in the deaths of five people including a police officer?

With great power comes great responsibility. The president of the United States should be aware of how his words will be received. And he is responsible for the consequences of those words. He doesn't have to concede but by constantly claiming the election was stolen he is responsible for the ensuing violence.