[PaulDavisThe1st]

Firstly, Signal is completely irrelevant here: they cannot censor based on message content, and have (for now) said that they will not (based, presumably on the fact that they cannot).

Secondly, in the case of a company such as Twitter, which can censor based on content, they are free to say that they think that the world is a better place if they do indeed play that role. You may disagree with them. I might even disagree with them too. But they are free to take that position, and I would contend that requiring them to follow your instincts on this is, in the long, a greater harm than figuring out net neutrality rules for the wiring (so to speak).

It will be a much better world where someone kicked off Twitter can move to Twotter or Trotter or Titter or Tatter, than one where Twitter is told what to do by governments.

[kr99x]

Firstly, this article and the discussions on this page are about Signal, it's hardly irrelevant. For the particular case of the company Signal, there are many actors claiming that censorship is needed. Signal for now disagrees, but even on this page you'll find people that support that. Just because the way Signal is implemented today resists the model doesn't mean that's a guarantee into the future.

Secondly, there is no reason we cannot have it both ways. A single communications company with content-neutral policies is helping the world more than one with content-sensitive policies. Two communications companies with content-neutral policies in competition with one another may be better yet, but that does not make Twitter choosing to censor its users the right thing for them to do. I have not said the government should tell Twitter what to do, only that they should choose not to censor because that makes the world a better place.

There is a growing contingent of people, especially younger people, who do not understand how free communication underlies the ability to make any change at all. Who do not see that creating the tools to censor conversations harms the future. They see immediate benefits in clamping down on this or that harm (temporarily ignoring that they're making themselves the arbiters of right and wrong and giving them the power to declare what is or is not a harm in the first place) but not grasping that they will not be in control of those tools in perpetuity.