[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I'm confused as well. When it benefits these platforms to be private orgs they claim to be within their rights as a private org. When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square. If you think that moderating posts infringes on free speech then perhaps they should be regulated as a utility?

I personally have no issue with any of these platforms moderating to their heart's content for the following reasons:

We are entitled to free speech but we are not entitled to use Twitter's megaphone.

I am against megaphones. I don't like companies like Twitter. With any hope, the more they moderate the more people will move away from centralized platforms. Don't regulate them and they will moderate themselves out of existence (I wish).

[astura]

>When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square.

When did Twitter ever claim to be a "Town Square?" Furthermore, when would it benefit them to claim that?

[nradov]

"A lot of people come to Twitter and they don’t actually see an app or a service, they see what kind of looks like a public square. And they have the same sort of expectations of a public square. And that is what we have to make sure that we get right. And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square.”

-Jack Dorsey

https://www.wired.com/story/jack-dorsey-twitters-role-free-s...

I am not endorsing his statement but Twitter's CEO apparently considers it as a town square.