"We should not be abdicating responsibility for the tough policy decisions required, and delegating responsibility for our community standards to conflicted corporates."
And although Facebook and Twitter were widely praised - including by this journalist - for finally acting on Trump after years of misleading and inflammatory posts - Edwards is not alone in raising warning flags.
Kate Ruane, a lawyer for the Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - which has so often been in conflict with the President - told the New York Times, "We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions."
She added, "President Trump can turn to his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others — like the many Black, brown and L.G.B.T.Q. activists who have been censored by social media companies — will not have that luxury."
Here, the NZ Council for Civil Liberties did not want to comment at this point in events.
Twitter and Facebook both temporarily blocked Trump after a mob - apparently incited by his words - over-ran Capital Hill, and after a years-long string of posts containing incorrect, misleading or inflammatory statements.
Facebook subsequently extended its ban until the end of the US president's term in 12 days. Twitter, after briefly allowing Trump back on, decided to issue a lifetime ban.
Other services have followed suit over the past 48 hours, including Facebook-owned Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, Google-owned YouTbe, and Reddit, while popular e-commerce platform Shopify took down Trump's official campaign store.
Trump has reportedly mulled a move to Parler - a relatively small and clunky platform, but one with a permissive approach to content moderation.
The alt right-friendly Parler would stand to benefit greatly if a portion of Trump's 80 million Twitter and 20 million Facebook fans came across.
However, Google has just pulled Parler from its app store for failing to properly police violent content, and Apple has warned the platform it could follow suit if it doesn't tighten up its act.
In any case, any Trump shift to Parler would coincide with his departure from the White House, robbing his posts of some of their potency.
Meanwhile, an irony of the situation won't be lost on Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg or Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
In his final days in office, Trump - aggrieved at having his posts slapped with warning labels - tried to add a clause to a defence bill that would have seen social media platforms lose a long-standing safe-harbour protection and become liable for any offending content on their platforms.
The President lost that battle, which was arguably cutting off his nose to spite his face. Had he won, and Facebook and Twitter et al become directly liable for the content they carry, it would have been much easier for them to argue that their ban on his accounts was justified.
What's not in doubt: whatever its merits, the social media ban will hurt.
"Trump's dependence on Twitter," supersedes even his basic need of oxygen to breathe," the President's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen said.
Trump has used the social network since 2011, but it was only in 2013 that he learned how to use it himself, and his posts as we know it took off.
"The moment I found out Trump could tweet himself was comparable to the moment in 'Jurassic Park' when Dr Grant realised that velociraptors could open doors. I was like, 'Oh no'," the President's former social media manager Justin McConney recalled last month.
And Trump duly went ballistic with rage when banned, according to reports.
Ultimately, he needed Twitter more than Twitter needed him.
