[sigmaprimus]

Can You provide an example of a shared thought that does not attack someone or group of people that has resulted in censorsip or banning? Otherwise your argument falls apart too.

Edit*

Your argument is actually a reasonable one but because of that it pretty much proves the Baker that refuses services is just as bad as the social media companies that descrimatly ban and censor users.

It is with that in mind that I made my argument, I think both of us and most others would agree that there have been unfair, arbitrary decisions made by tech companies and they should not get a free pass to discriminate or control the narrative.

Rather than a race to the bottom by allowing everyone the right to act in this manner (Including Mr. Baker) is it not more reasonable to hold our elected governments accountable for their willingness to transact buisness with said bad actors and insist on policy changes which prevent the collusion of government with private corporations forming some kind of techno-fascist authority like we currently have?

[solus_factor]

No, by "attacking" I mean interfering. Simply offending somebody is not an attack. If I say something to my followers - it's not an attack. If you don't like what I am saying, don't follow me.

If you, on the other hand, start actively replying to my tweets, and tweets of my followers, trying to disrupt our conversation - that's an attack.

I am not arguing about allowing everybody to do and say absolutely whatever they want. I am arguing that platforms must follow some sort of a mandatory democratic process that lets _their_users_ decide how to govern themselves.

And the role of the federal government is to enforce that democratic process on each platform, not to regulate speech directly.