[spunker540]

People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

I really don’t believe just because Twitter is popular it’s suddenly mandatory that it host any and all content. If hacker news became as popular as twitter could the government suddenly start compelling HN to stop censoring off topic conversation and host any and all posts?

Twitter was created by people to serve a certain purpose and for certain conversations and they are within their rights to control the content they host on their machines and on their site.

[Someguywhatever]

>People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your platform as well, which is fairly unlikely.

[mc32]

Let's put it this way, let's say George Soros bought it. He then directed the employees who didn't quit to ban all people who are not leftists.

Or, let's say on the other hand the Koch brothers buy it and again, direct employees who have not quit to ban all non-conservative posters.

Would that be okay because they don't owe it to anyone to be a medium for everyone?

[spunker540]

Yeah that’d be okay.

Someone else could create a more neutral site since there’d certainly be a void to fill.

[mc32]

Then, I'm pretty sure your opinion is in the minority. There would be outrage from either side, if affected, I'm sure.

[root_axis]

Where is the ambiguity? In your example, a private company was purchased by a private individual and now they legally own it... why shouldn't they legally be allowed to do whatever they want with it?

[sangnoir]

Didn't someone make an alt-right twitter and an alt-right Reddit? No-one's complaining - those who don't like it keep away.