No no no. Their reasoning was complete utter shit and I am taking absolutely nothing out of context.
Twitter's reasoning for the ban:
"We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021."
The cited tweet was Trump saying that he would not attend the inauguration. That is reaching at straws. With how lose the interpretation is, you could tie literally any tweet from a politician as a call for violence. When democrats were whining about the election in 2016 and delegitimizing Trump's victory, I'm sure I could find some tweets that could very loosely encourage violence by bending over backwards in logic the way Twitter is.
Give me a break, read the first two sentences of the post again and then see if you still want to argue that whether or not he planned to attend the inauguration has literally anything to do with why he was banned.
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html