[nhfoiwehf]

> We cannot in one breath say we are in favor of free speech, then in another breath say we want corporations to censor people whose views we don't like.

Pretend you own a publishing company. You publish books by authors you like.

Then I ask you to publish my book, called "99 Reasons Why We Should Murder Puppies and Abuse Our Children."

If you choose to pass on my book, is that censorship? I would say, as a publisher, you have freedom of the press, including editorial discretion. The right to free speech isn't the right to an audience.

Now how is this different from Twitter? Well people say Twitter is not a publisher, but a platform. They take submissions from everywhere, so they shouldn't have the freedom to pick and choose who they want to publish on their site. It's more like a phone company than a publisher.

But I don't buy that argument. Here's why:

1. For a long time, Twitter has made rules about what content belongs on their network. My phone company doesn't tell me who I can call or what I can say.

2. Twitter is completely owned by a single company and tightly controlled. With phone companies, there is interoperability between networks.

3. Twitter is not regulated like a phone company.

5. Twitter has an editorial team which curates "moments," which further blurs the publisher / platform distinction.

5. Twitter does not treat content on it's network in an equal way. Their algorithm determines the "best tweets" for you and displays them more prominently. They also make suggestions as who you should follow. My phone doesn't ring louder depending on who is calling. This is crucial, because when you see far-right content, it's not only because you have subscribed to it. In many ways, Twitter's algorithm is helping it spread.

-----

So Twitter if not a neutral platform that has to cater to everyone. They have always tried to control their network - how it can be used, what you can say on it. As long as they do that, they bear some responsibility for what people say on their website.

If they don't want to do that, that's fine. But then don't censor any content at all. Open up your API. Stop recommending certain tweets and posts. Give users a chronological feed option, and make the "best tweets" algorithm transparent.

[judah]

>> You publish books by authors you like.

Right there your analogy breaks down; Twitter publishes content it doesn't like. It publishes all content that doesn't break the law or its rules.

But it's beside the point. Do we want Facebook, Google, and other social media companies deciding what we can and cannot say?

If we are consistent in our libertarianism, we must answer no.

[nhfoiwehf]

> It publishes all content that doesn't break its rules.

And some of those rules are about the content of what's posted (no nudity, no harassment). Therefore it's behaving like a publisher, with editorial discretion.

If you don't like the book publisher analogy, consider a newspaper that runs letters to the editor. They don't officially endorse the opinions in those letters, and anyone can write one. But the newspaper can still pick which letters get published.

> Do we want Facebook, Google, and other social media companies deciding what we can and cannot say?

They aren't telling us what we can / can't say. They are telling us what we can / can't publish on their websites.

But to you, it doesn't feel that way. And me neither. Why? Because Facebook and Google have a near Duopoly over communication on the internet. That's the real problem. We need to break them up. We need to acknowledge that network effects create natural monopolies, and perhaps regulate or force interoperability on some social networking sites.