"It's not banning arguments, just recognising that the public sphere isn't the best place for certain arguments."

And so on. That feels like a slippery slope to me.

That's like saying banning electing of representatives by a show of hands in favour of the secret ballot is just a slippery slope to banning democracy altogether.

> That feels like a slippery slope to me.

It only feels like a slippery slope if you make no attempt to think about why Twitter is a bad place for certain kinds of debate, and instead assume that whatever traits make Twitter bad for that generalize to the entire public sphere.

It seems like a slippery slope to say that Twitter must promote any message, regardless of content.

Surely if Twitter has to publish content, it would be reasonable to require The New York Times to publish, and promote, an article from Storm Front. Or require Fox to publish, and promote, actual Climate Science content.

Twitter is not even halting the argument, they’re just refusing to artificially promote it above other content.