I'm sure the irony would have been completely lost on him.

Technically no because they didn't technically have a valid reason for banning him this time even when 230 applies for one simple reason -- he didn't actually incite anybody to commit any crime in any tweet. Even Twitter acknowledged this
They correlated and implied it but acknowledged that he wasn't banned for actually making a specific statement, which by their own policy isn't a violation in itself.

If I say 'lets go out and drink it's gonna be wild' on Facebook etc and someone gets into a drunken fight or a car crash, neither me or Facebook are responsible whether 230 exists.

Even if that's true, Twitter had a clear impetus to ban Trump after he and other members of the right incited violence at the rally before the Capitol building attack. Besides, Trump had already had repeatedly violated Twitter's policies, so they had more than enough reason to permanently ban him.

By the way, that example you gave was terrible and completely non-analogous to what Trump did.

He invited violence? Can I see the tweet.

Also the example I gave was exactly what it is. If you don't tell people to do something you hold no responsibility for their actions...because you didn't get them to do it.
So unless you can show me a tweet of Donald telling people to go attack the building, were done here.

We're done here? Oh good, I didn't want to read any more comments from you anyway. You completely missed the point all around.

Were done here because you can't substantiate your position.
If you can't show me where trump told people to commit violence then you can't argue that he violated Twitter policy by inciting violence..

And if he didn't incite violence then neither he or Twitter would have been liable if 230 was removed.

In essence, your argument is based on what you want to be true, rather than truth.

I never said he incited violence in a tweet, I said he incited violence at the rally before the Capitol building attack. Please learn to read and actually understand my position before you start attacking it.

Learn to read? Your meme refers exclusively to Twitter and it's liability under a removal of 230...that is literally the entire subject in your meme.
So apparently you started with 'trump said something to violate twitter terms' and ended with 'trump apparently said something somewhere else'.

Ok then we'll play this game -- give me the exact quote if where trump said to attack the building on twitter OR at the rally. Fair deal.

The most exact quote I could find is: "We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

Okay, granted Trump himself didn't directly incite them by specifically telling them to attack the Capitol building. But he definitely incited the violence by spending the last 2 months on and off Twitter lying to his fanbase about the election, and then continuing his false voter fraud narrative at the rally. He did little to nothing to discourage the more incendiary remarks made by his son and Rudy Giuliani. He placed loyalists within the Pentagon back in November. Anyone could see that some some sort of attack or insurrection was coming (the FBI even warned about the possibility of an attack on the Capitol the day before). Trump was busy, while the attack was happening, calling on senators to delay certifying the electoral votes. Assistance from the National Guard was denied until well after the damage had been done. Even if Trump didn't directly incite the riot with any of his remarks at the rally, he definitely supported and encouraged it by laying the groundwork before, during and after the election. Trump knew very well what he was doing, and Twitter was well within their right to preemptively permaban Trump's account.

Even ignoring or dismissing all of that, which I know you'll do, Trump's own tweets spreading his false narrative that the election was rigged were very clear and repeated violations of Twitter's civic integrity policy, and at the very least, defamatory towards Dominion and the election departments of several states. Without section 230, Twitter would no longer have been protected from liability from Trump's tweets, and would have no choice but to ban him anyway.