Equitable treatment is expected for equivalent actions, each of the instances of exceptionalism that you mentioned is completely different (and they're all exceptional individuals, I fully agree on this), and may require different treatments.
The Candice Owens/ Sarah Jeong switcheroo is a textbook case of apples to apples, and got different treatments. And before you say "twitter dindu nuffin cuz the thousands of people who said they reported her were all lazy and lying and she deleted the tweets," no, she didn't. See for yourself:
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/538553252514525184
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/547578218078019584
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/538553252514525184
My argument isn't "lol life is unfair", my argument is that if you want to stay on a platform, you abide by its stated rules, which you agreed to when using it, no one can ban you if you didn't violate the rules, at least in theory.
Agreed, "in theory." Unfortunately, in trivially observable fact, it doesn't work that way: your treatment is almost entirely determined by your politics and your position on the progressive stack. This constant grasping at straws to sidestep the fact that Twitter's credibility is more blown out than Zinnia Jones's asshole is morbidly amusing, but that's about all I'll say for it.
You can't argue for free markets and at the same time dictate how people run their businesses, those are two inherently contradictory notions.
Watch me: "free markets are generally preferable to regulation due to their superior efficiency. However, natural monopolies are a corner case that require government intervention because both outcomes (multiple competitors operating on the wrong side of economies of scale, or a single company with monopoly power) are bad for consumers. Therefor, natural monopolies like Twitter should be forced to abide by the same rules as water, power, and telephone companies with regards to non-discrimination."
(btw I love that you skipped the part where I included what he did, because that's totally not cow behavior at all, that's a totally benign and human behavior..).
Start ranting about "schoolyard logic," then go in for passive-aggressive name-calling when I don't re-copy your copypasta about what happened. The irony is strong with this one. Why would I respond to that? It's not the events themselves that are under question, but your interpretation of them, and constant refusal to acknowledge the fact that the Twitter rules are so capriciously applied as to be effectively meaningless.
This is a point you keep conspicuously refusing to address, incidentally: I've demonstrated over and over that Twitter is all over the place when it comes to actually enforcing their stated rules, but you just keep bleating about "muh ToS!" as if that means anything in a context where there's no transparency or accountability as to how notional rules are applied. Spoilers: it doesn't.
The point here is, SJWs know how to game the system, and if you want to fight them, then you have to get good at gaming the system yourself, no one wins by whining.
If you believe that, I have two bridges I'd like to sell you. First, SJWs have no special knowledge of hostile system gaming. The reason it works for them is that they people they're complaining to are SJWs themselves, and ideologically predisposed to be sympathetic to their complaints- IOW, the fix is in. Second, because the fix is in, SJWs get results by doing nothing
but whining. The right-wing equivalent would be to complain to sympathetic right-wing tech staff to get people they don't like banned except, oops, there aren't any of those. Take a look at the tiny slice of geography where most of these companies are located and you might get the first clue as to why that is.
