[only_as_i_fall]

Is it a bad defense though?

I think that the problem is about concentration of power more than speech rights and the real takeaway is that allowing 3 or 4 companies to control such an overwhelming share of communications infrastructure is a mistake regardless of what rules there are.

The argument that we should lean on Twitter to maintain such nebulous concepts as "freedom" at the expense of their own profits is never going to convince me.

[mrfusion]

I think the fact that they’re a monopoly is the big thing (or effectively one).

Monopolies have always had different rules. My electric utility is a private company but in my state they have to ask permission before raising prices.

[AnimalMuppet]

And they can't decide to not serve me because they don't like my political views. They can't choose to not give me power because they don't like what I put on my neon sign.

[reedjosh]

I don't want to lean on Twitter to maintain freedom. I just want the government not to do the opposite.

[only_as_i_fall]

By "the government" do you mean every government in the world?

I don't agree with censorship in other countries but I also think it's weird to expect transnational companies to push western laws and values in places where the ruling government doesn't want them.

[reedjosh]

> do you mean every government in the world?

I do not want any government to attempt to coerce a private company to censor private speech. That said, it's particularly egregious if a nation with a constitution limiting it participates in said coercion.

That said, regarding...

> I also think it's weird to expect transnational companies to push western laws and values in places where the ruling government doesn't want them.

I too find that weird. I don't expect Twitter to act in any particular way. My expectation is that my government doesn't act irresponsibly.