Donald Trump’s use of social media doesn’t always serve him well. And that’s being generous.

So, what can we do to fix it? Well, Peter Greenberger, a political consultant who launched Google and Twitter’s political advertising teams, has an idea:

Greenberger writes:

But even at the risk of infringing on the principle of free speech and decreasing engagement for a period — which is to say, hurting their own bottom lines — Twitter and Facebook must muzzle Trump as the election nears.

What will he tweet as we get closer to Election Day? Or as the returns start coming in? Is there any doubt he will question results, claim victory unilaterally or inflame his supporters to take to the streets? The stakes are too high to wait to find out.

This is not unprecedented. Some nations impose a “silence period” before elections, during which campaigns pause all television and digital advertising (outside of get-out-the-vote activities). India, a nation with a sad history of violence between people and parties, uses this cooling-off period to allow voters to contemplate their decision without the cacophony of campaign communications.

In this case, however, the cooling-off period is necessary for the one candidate whose apparent sole motivation is to sow chaos and confusion around the ongoing election. Trump has already told his most dangerous supporters to “stand by.” Twitter and Facebook shouldn’t allow him to use their platforms to give violent actors the green light.

Trump might say stuff I don’t like, so just to be safe, social media platforms should shut him down. “Even at the risk of infringing on the principle of free speech,” the same principle that gives Peter Greenberger to use a national newspaper to argue against free speech.

What a long, strange trip it’s been.

Maybe that’s what speech cops like Peter Greenberger are afraid of.