I think we need to be at least open to the possibility that the current owner of privately held Twitter is an extraordinarily thin-skinned douchebag with the conflict management skills of a spoiled toddler, and a lengthy track record of petty ridiculous retaliation against people who suggest he is wrong about something or otherwise not the biggest genius in the world.
You can’t blame the enforcement of a new policy on a “rogue employee”. The buck stops with Elon and he needs to own the consequences of whatever policy changes he decides to enact.
From the "Twitter Files", the platform reporting system has a list of accounts, and those accounts can have different levels of "approval" for moderation. For example, any moderation action taken on Libs of Tik Tok would require approval from a committee [1]. Larger, more popular accounts require more eyes as they're likely to garner more "false" reports.
All of this is to say that there are three likely scenarios:
1. For whatever reason (e.g. staffing, technical problems, lack of training), PG's account didn't get treated with the scrutiny it deserved.
2. A report on PG's account went up the chain, landed in front of a trained moderation team, and they banned him against Musk's wishes (presumably unintentionally).
3. Musk desired his ban.
If it was a random tech CEO, I think Scenario 2 would be most likely. Given the recent technical issues with Twitter, their employee turnover, and Musk's recent actions towards "former allies" that spoke out against him, I think it's actually a toss-up.
