[TameAntelope]

I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate. Twitter, as a company, should be allowed to pursue whatever market they believe will best provide value to their shareholders, and if that market includes "Americans with typical sensibilities" then I doubt they'd be able to pursue that market while allowing hate speech and harassment on their platform.

I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to freely associate as a form of free speech just as vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to say whatever they like (with some exceptions around protected groups).

[nullc]

Thanks for correcting my misread. That makes a lot more sense. I don't think I agree there, certainly twitter's policies are more restrictive than say-- google-- which is used by a much larger portion of the country. But you've taken a defensible position, which I wouldn't care to debate.

[LudwigNagasena]

> I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate.

Or maybe you mean people who don’t live in those pesky flyover states?

[TameAntelope]

...I live in a pesky flyover state!

There are not many of us here, it wouldn't make sense for some small percentage of the US population to dictate how the entire population is forced to engage with one another on a website run by a private (as in not-government run) organization.

Twitter should be able to seek profits, and if maximal profits exist by creating a set of rules that can be violated with non-illegal activity, they should be allowed to chase those dollars.