[bezier-curve]

Maybe Twitter doesn't owe individuals anything in particular but as a collective society I think we should be asking if it's okay for private companies that control a lot of online discourse for them to silently ban with no transparency. How do we know they're not making decisions based on a conflict of interest? Maybe there's some area for social media regulation.

[Distozion]

I'm not arguing that tech giants shouldn't run the risk of becoming public utilities - after all, quite a lot of their success could be attributed to utilising public resources, either directly or indirectly (user data, monopolistic approach to business, lack of relevant regulation at the time they were in their explosive growth periods, etc).

I could even see it as a potential way to balance public and private interests - if you try to consolidate too much - you run the risk of losing your private status and becomes a mix of private/public company, where some of the protections afforded to private businesses no longer apply.

There have been examples of these things happening, notably how railway became so dominant around the world that governments intervened and nationalised them. There's no way of knowing how long the current tech giant status quo will last - will it get worse or will they get slapped down.

[WHATDOESIT]

I'm afraid this might get bad quickly, with people demanding to post their stuff on my server and me having to keep it there and online - what if I just want to turn it off? So far my own server is sacrosanct, and as a hacker that runs a lot of my own services and has a little platform for my gaming community, I don't want to see that protection broken.