[realgeniushere]

In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.

[Eisenstein]

Twitter is not the government.

[realgeniushere]

What a low effort and low thought reply. No one said it is. I’m saying there’s a principled way to have free speech and still take down spam.

[Eisenstein]

I'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?

[realgeniushere]

Maybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?