[rq1]

I completely and fundamentally disagree with Trump and his “ideology”.

But how can we agree on the principle of censorship?

I mean, if we agree with the idea of censorship, we also mechanically agree to get censored tomorrow by whoever is the new censor.

Shouldn’t it be the same rule for everyone?

[jaredklewis]

Well Twitch “censors” (aka moderates their platform) all the time and Trump is not the first account on Twitch to be disabled, so certainly Twitch would argue that they are applying “the same rules for everyone.”

More broadly, I disagree with your use of the word “censor.” Trump can say whatever he wants. But it doesn’t follow that if some company doesn’t want to publish his book or stream his video that it’s censorship.

Some places don’t have moderation (parler). Other places do (Twitch). That’s fine.

[rq1]

He’s still the president of the USA. Not a random person.

I’m not talking specifically about Twitch.

At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.

Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.

[jaredklewis]

> I’m not talking specifically about Twitch.

Ok, but this article is about Twitch.

> At the moment where they make their platform public, they have no political nor moral authority to say what’s good or bad.

So anything that is "public" cannot have moderation? A chess forum has to allow Osama bin Laden to post his political rants? Should it be illegal to run a website with moderation?

> Tomorrow if the leadership changes, they can on the contrary censor everything but not Trump and you’ll have nothing to say then.

I'll say the same thing I am saying today: it's their own platform and they can moderate it however they want. If I don't like their moderation, I am perfectly capable of going elsewhere.