But they aren't generating the content, users are. Why should they be responsible for what you say? And it's their platform, why are you entitled to it insofar they can't moderate?
Can Amazon not kick people off their servers without being responsible as a publisher? At what point can a company no longer decide what happens within their ecosystem?
I thought we appreciated freedom of speech in the US, and that includes freedom to ignore speech.
> I thought we appreciated freedom of speech in the US, and that includes freedom to ignore speech.
That's precisely the problem: freedom of speech.
It's starting to seem pretty clear that people with certain views are getting moderated, censored, sanctioned, and generally have their speech policed and restricted on Twitter.
People with different views are not being policed in the same way, even when they violate the same rules (see for example the Iranian president who never got moderated despite tweeting genocide ethnic cleansing threats on a regular basis).
Freedom of speech is precisely the issue, precisely what's at stake here.
Twitter is restricting the freedom of speech of right-wing users, then pretending they're just a neutral user-content platform.
They can't have it both ways.
Personally, I think free speech protections should apply to big platforms like Twitter, or else we risk the de-facto elimination of free speech in our time, since the contemporary town square happens to be owned by a private corporation.
Can Amazon not kick people off their servers without being responsible as a publisher? At what point can a company no longer decide what happens within their ecosystem?
I thought we appreciated freedom of speech in the US, and that includes freedom to ignore speech.