I'm actually curious: where would this be a slippery slope to, in your opinion? I understand that these platforms have a lot of influence, and I wouldn't like it if they censored whatever I believe. However, I think that new social media platforms are created fast enough that one can always find a place to discuss whatever they would want to discuss. (Both for better or for worse)
Network effect is pretty strong and although these platforms can easily be replicated, it's just not easy to get masses to adopt a new platform. I'm afraid that just like the traditional news media this could lead to a society where these companies could decide what people get to see and read.
They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.
>They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used
This is a major flaw in modern legal tradition and social morality. Society will continue to suffer from it. People need to stop pretending Internet media is an optional luxury. It's now integral to the public's extended mind and method of social/political discourse. No one is writing letters to the editor anymore, or going to salons, or likely talking heavy politics with their neighbors.
not just "don't have to" but I'd say that they have a responsibility to make sure that their platforms aren't used to incite violence against anyone but there are better ways to handle an outgoing but still an elected President and it's not clear if that's what really happened. I thought people had the right to protest in this country?
If an elected President of the country is acting deranged then that's the responsibility of congress to do something about and not of glorified CRUD app creators.