[leanstartupnoob]

Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets.

Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.

[lliamander]

I honestly think you should stop trying to read minds. You aren't very good at it.

Perhaps you should try reading my words instead and responding to them rather than the imaginary things you pretend I actually think? It might work out better.

[leanstartupnoob]

> All I think is necessary is for existing contract and consumer protection laws be litigated and enforced.

Ergo, what you really want is government to enforce your version of free speech through "existing" contract law.

[lliamander]

Can you please tell me what "my version" of free speech is? Is this different from the normal understanding of free speech? Because I haven't actually said anything about "free speech" other than quoting Jack Dorsey.

While I do believe in the necessity of freedom of speech (not just the first amendment, but a particular set of cultural values) those abstract values aren't my primary concern here. My concerns (across the various tech platforms out there) are:

* the disruption to peoples' businesses that result from the opaque and largely incontestable content moderation process. This is mainly a concern where the content in question does not violate either the law nor the TOS.

* The exploitation of consumers through the gradual degradation of privacy.

* The attempts to undermine consumer rights by removing users' options for legal remedy in the TOS

Basically, if users' are providing value to these platforms through advertising revenue, mine-able private information, transaction fees, etc. what expectations can the users' have with regard to the value they receive and how they are treated by the platforms? I do not think the answer of "nothing" is acceptable.