[lhnz]

  > Anyway, just to clear your thinking,

Don't you think that this comes across as quite arrogant?

I wrote quite clearly that most people interested in free-speech aren't purists and might expect "limits to free speech" in certain circumstances, but that we'd like to discuss what this means with respect to the actual goal of a relatively level playing field for discussion.

You tell me that you've not strawmanned anybody, but within your first comment you wrote that "if you're a free speech purist you are OK with [Twitter] responding to free speech with their own free speech". This suggests that free speech is merely about being able to speak and that advocates would be happy for their speech to be stymied in other ways - and, in fact, pleased when all their speech has mandatory notices about its invalidity. Clearly this is not what free-speech advocates believe, so it certainly is straw-manning or as another put "some gymnastics".

Apart from that, the rest of what you said is relatively coherent and you did at least try to unpack the platform as-is.

It is true that the President of the United States is also an authority. However, are they an authority of Twitter? Well, they can't ban people or add editorial notes below the tweets of their opponents so perhaps not.

You also mention that "Trump is given special privileges on Twitter, and is exempt from virtually all the normal TOS", so shouldn't he be held to the same standard as everyone else? Well, yes. Why not?

As for whether new ways of adding editorial comment below people's tweets are "special abilities" I think so (because normal users can't do this).

However, I agree that Twitter was never "a free speech platform" and that by design it always amplified particular voices via crowd-sourcing. But, there is a difference between crowd-sourced amplification and centralised editorial oversight/amplification. While Twitter has "never been even remotely about [free speech]" the new features are clearly changing what it is from a crowd-sourced amplification platform to a platform with significant editorial oversight.

Is it better for there to be a centralised bias for or against different messages or identities or is it better for the bias to be crowd-sourced? Is the editorial oversight US-centric only? Who gets this power (e.g. governments, institutions, HR, etc)? When should there be limits to free speech? When some speech needs to be inhibited should this be done in the open or behind closed doors? Should infractions be explained? Does anybody get to break the rules?

I and many others would like if these questions could be answered by the big social networks. It's annoying when people simplify all of this into some primitive desire for everybody to be able to say whatever and have their voice amplified by a platform, since that is not what I am saying.

[jmull]

> This suggests that free speech is merely about being able to speak and that advocates would be happy for their speech to be stymied in other ways

I do not suggest that. I am not trying narrowly define speech. My point is: It is free speech for someone to make claims about election fraud. It is also free speech for someone to refute those claims.

Why deny Twitter the right to their own editorial position, whatever its bias, while certain twitter users — with strong biases of their own — have free reign?

You seem to want to cast Twitter expressing their own position as inhibiting someone else’s free speech, but it’s just their own free speech. Free speech means you get to express yourself, not be free from contradiction.

[lhnz]

I agree that Twitter should be able to have an editorial position, even though this might mean that are trending away from how they were originally. As you said, you cannot be "free from contradiction".

On the other hand, there are many ways to stymie speech which don't involve outright supression. Some of the things that Twitter does to stop certain speech are better than other ways -- I think it's good when they can be explicit about what they are doing and why they are doing it. It might be better business for them to be non-partisan as they provide a platform for people across the world but that is also their choice.

However, if for example, I was an admin on HN and had some special ability to put emphasized disclaimers below your comments about how they were mistaken and you were wrong, I think you would be right to feel like I was biasing the discussion and that it was unfair. An advocate for free speech (to the extent that I am, and in the way that I am) might be against this, since it does not create a good environment for discussion (new arguments or new ideas).

As I said, it kind of depends on the particulars and the context, but I kind of think about it like a debate between two people overseen by a moderator. If the moderator is neutral it is preferred by the audience, and if it looks like unfair treatment by the moderator it could easily backfire. Of course, this metaphor is quite specific and not guaranteed to apply to all situations -- but, I think it should be considered, since it's not uncommon for grifters on Twitter to make a fuss about how they are being unfairly targeted, in order to persuade their audience that "the truth" is being hidden from them by an unchecked elite (this is along the lines of my first comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25044396).