[perihelions]

- "How come I I'm now banned from reading what Zelensky, Kasparov, Yann LeCun, and thousands of others world leaders have to say?"

This is the single most important thing about tech censorship I wish more HN'ers would figure out on their own. It may be narrated as a fight between corporations and judges, but in addition to all of that, it's ordinary individuals' rights on the line. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

The right of an individual human to read what some individual account on a media platform wrote is a core civil right, and should be inviolate. It stands alone and apart from whatever other wrongs the platform is involved in.

The modern zeitgeist isn't merely burning books; it's burning down magnificent libraries of books in order to spite approximately five of them.

[foinker]

I think we should all just accept that these platforms are not suitable for the purposes of being a global bulletin board/library of human activity as long as they are owned and operated by private corporations who only care about your inviolable rights to speak freely when it suits them. There are other ways besides twitter to see what Zelensky says.

[tim333]

I disagree. I think the platforms are ok if not without imperfections. HN is owned by a private corporation. Should you ban yourself from reading this as a result?

[IG_Semmelweiss]

we should accept that government agencies are not suitable for the purpose of providing your basic food, medical, education, or security needs; who furthermore only care about your food, your healthcare, habeas corpus or rule of law when it suits them and maintains their job.

There are other ways besides the USDA, DoE, or FBI to get good food, health, education, and security.

[foinker]

Seriously? Governments' legitimacy is pinned to their ability to provide food and medical attention to their citizenry. It doesn't make any difference whether or not twitter exists or who has access to it.