[username90]

It is fine to police disruptions, but you shouldn't police ideas. If all conservatives are told to wait for their turns while it is fine for liberals to just blurt things out then it isn't free speech. However if everyone is forced to wait and a conservative gets banned for talking out of turn then it is still free speech, he got banned for disrupting and not for his message.

It is hard/impossible to create laws around it since it is hard to formally define, but often it is obvious when it is infringed in practice just that we can't litigate it.

[ac29]

This seems like a strawman - no one is getting banned from social media for having polite disagreements on foreign policy or income tax rates.

[tekknik]

You haven’t been to imgur have you? Some sites have a point system and if your “social score” is too low you most definitely can get banned. There’s generally more left leaning people than right leaning people on some platforms, and when someone disagrees with someone else but otherwise can’t refute their statements they hit downvote. Enough of this and you get a ban.

[ac29]

You took my comment too literally - of course there are people who've been banned somewhere online for having opinions another human disagreed with. My point was that no large social media platform has a policy of banning people for civilized political disagreements.

[tekknik]

Ok so what do we do about the first part of banning people for having a different opinion when they were otherwise civilized? A social media site having a policy that directly states “if you disagree with my statements i’ll ban you” is clearly not an issue nor is even worth discussing. I can’t really see how this is taking your comment too literally.

[perl4ever]

Some site are like that, plus talking about the voting system is against the rules, and even if you get plenty of upvotes, you can still be throttled or banned by a moderator.