The boss of Twitter has finally broken his silence on the decision to permanently ban Donald Trump's account.
The move was announced on Friday night (local time) and was in response to fears the President could use the page to incite further violence following the Capitol riots.
Reactions to the ban have been mixed, with some calling it unwarranted censorship and others saying it's five years too late.
But the social media company's CEO, Jack Dorsey, has defended the decision and said it wasn't an easy choice to make.
He wrote in a lengthy thread: "I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here.
"After a clear warning we'd take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?
"I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety.
"Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all."
Dorsey acknowledged how big of a deal it was to ban an account that belonged to a world leader. He said it has the power to fracture the community and unnecessarily divide people. He admitted the ban was a 'failure of ours' to promote healthy conversation.
The CEO is reviewing the way his company approaches issues like this.
He continued: "The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of the larger public conversation happening across the internet. If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service."
That certainly did happen, however Trump has subsequently been banned on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch, Pintrest and others.
Trump supporters also found a 'free speech' app called Parler kicked off the app stores of Amazon, Google and Apple.
Jack Dorsey insists this wasn't a coordinated social media attack on the President or his followers.
"More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others," he said.