[nradov]

There's nothing insane about it. Twitter used to be highly supportive of free speech. However they now actively ban users and censor tweets which don't conform to Twitter's ideology. The content they are banning isn't illegal (at least not in the USA), they just don't like it. And the criteria for banning is only vaguely defined and constantly shifting based on the whims of a few employees. Thus any tweets they leave up are implicitly endorsed by Twitter.

Twitter also acts as a publisher by exercising editorial control over if and where tweets actually appear to each user.

Twitter would have a stronger legal and moral argument against further regulation if they acted as a neutral intermediary. For example, they could establish a policy of only removing content if required to do so by law.

[esoterica]

Hacker news also bans people merely for being rude, even if they don’t post illegal content. If you have a principled objection to this act you should delete your HN account and leave.

[nradov]

You misunderstand. As a strong supporter of private property rights I have no objection to Y Combinator or Twitter banning users or removing content from their services. But if they're going to exercise that degree of control then for regulation and legal liability purposes they should expect to be treated more like publishers than like common carriers.

[strbean]

No parcel carrier will allow me to mail my cardboard box full of loose fish guts. They turn me away because the box is wet and falling apart and smells terrible. They find the content I want them to ship to be objectionable, and it would negatively affect their ability to provide service to their other customers.

I'm not sure if that is a great analogy for what Twitter et al. are doing in regards to content policing, but there is some kind of argument there.

[esoterica]

Should we be able to sue HN over any comment or post that gets made in this website? Do you not realize that HN would be forced to shut down overnight since the legal liability would be completely untenable? Your legal regime would effectively make internet moderation impossible. It would, without a single trace of exaggeration, instantly kill almost every single internet community in existence.

[nradov]

You're exaggerating. I don't know why you immediately jump to the assumption that any regulatory change would be all or nothing. A more likely political outcome will be some sort of compromise.

For example, Internet services which host user-generated content might be able to retain liability protection only if they also provide some reasonable degree of transparency and accountability. Clearly document their editorial policies and algorithms, and provide a formal appeals process for users who were censored.

[BadThink6655321]

Should the person whose content is blocked be able to face their accuser, know precisely what line they crossed over, and have recourse against arbitrary, malicious, incompetent ... moderation? As it now stands, one entity is judge, jury, and executioner, which is a recipe for abuse of power.

[d1zzy]

Which is fine. It's the same "abuse of power" I get to enjoy when I decide whom I allow in my house and who I don't.

[ryandrake]

> It would, without a single trace of exaggeration, instantly kill almost every single internet community in existence.

Only the ones that act like publishers, curating the content they allow and disallow. The ones that behave more like the telephone or postal system would not have the liability, right?