[Asooka]

Twitter has already booted former president of the USA Donald Trump due to similar conduct. As they say, with great power, comes great responsibility. Twitter have shown themselves willing to wield their power for the good of the USA, thus they should also accept their responsibility for the good of all mankind.

[fluoridation]

It could be argued that since the latter is impossible, they should abstain from the former.

[tsol]

Exactly. People are acting like the conversation here for the past year+ hasn't revolved around social media companies taking responsibility for the negative effects of their products

[ricardobeat]

Trump was inciting civil unrest often, but I believe they set a terrible precedent by banning his account for the “I’m not attending the inauguration” tweet, based on a ton of very subtle inferences.

One cannot reasonably expect them to act as a fact checker & censor for the entire world, nor would that be desirable from a private corporation. What we need is better, regulated moderation systems, and a justice system that can keep up with the pace of social media.

[mypalmike]

The pace of social media is insurmountable. More information is generated per second on social media than any justice system could process in a year.

[pessimizer]

More information is generated in the material world per second than is generated on social media per year, but we haven't seen that as a reason to dismantle the justice system.

[mypalmike]

Nobody was advocating for dismantling the justice system.

Social media specifically lends itself to widespread and high frequency libel, fraud, threats, and other illegal acts. What "material world" information manages to do so at a similar rate?

[MichaelZuo]

The vast majority of social media 'libel, fraud, threats, and other illegal acts' involves an unverified identity as either the sender and/or receiver. It can all be ignored with a click of the button, or often even easier because one never sees it in the first place.

And why does it matter if the total number of messages exceeds our ability to read them? People don't sue over an aggregate of messages but for individual messages. If there are too many people suing then the courts will simply take longer and longer until an equilibrium point is reached.

[ricardobeat]

What is the alternative?