Twitter suspended my account a month ago because they do not understand the use of satire and said I was threatening violence.

I sent an appeal, which was ignored. Then consulted with an attorney at the ACLU and sent another. They replied and said I threatened violence.

I think there's some 20 year old kid reviewing these cases who doesn't understand the purpose of satire is usually the opposite of what is written.

Or it someone who feels powerless in their life and this is how they feel powerful.

You could have been responded to by a bot. The big tech companies do not like to spend any more money than they have to on communicating with users.

Twitter is set up to pit people against each other, yet they ban people for expressing the anger generated by their business model.

I think I was suspended by a bot. If a bot replied to my appeal that would sort of seem to defy the point of an appeal because if the bot didn't have the intelligence to understand the entirety of my comment in context then it wouldn't have the intelligence to understand my appeal. In which case, Twitter is violating contract law.