Twitter Banishment "is what they do in China"

[clean]

There are certainly parallels between the twitter banishment and the way China has and does act to control its population, but Twitter is a private company, not the government.  However, they have not really followed their policies with respect to Trump, so can they now?  (Well, they CAN, but should they?)

Isnt it dangerous to block free speech? 

Are there other alternatives to blocking Trump (and minions) from Twitter?

Does this take away the moral high ground from the USA (relative to China, for instance)?

In as much as one can not yell "Fire" in a theater, arent there ways, short of complete blocking for life, of the president? I believe that he helped instigate the situation at the capital AND could encourage problems at the inauguration.  But is THIS the best solution?  (I really dont know.  Can Trump be reined in by anyone, or is he truly 'mad' now making his twitter ban the best course of action?)

[mahagonny]

Who has the right to require them to follow their policies consistently? Only Twitter. If they don't you're free to point that out. They are not government. Although they are a monopoly of sorts. I'll explain.
Trump has enough money to build another Twitter for his own use, and we may see him doing that. I don't. Twitter shouldn't reevaluate what they do because of its effect on DJT.
Whereas I could get banned from social media and it would change how I live my life and what people know of me. I'd still have freedom of speech, but Freedom of speech doesn't count for much without freedom of hearing. Let's say I had some important groundbreaking thing to say of potential benefit to all mankind. It would likely never be heard or noticed, even if I broadcast it over all social media, because I am not a person who has people's attention. Fortunately I guess, I have nothing to say in that category in plain English. At the same time,
The arts are full of people who've expressed profound beauty that has yet to be exposed. We all know Mozart and Debussy were supposed to be cool guys, but their message might as well be in Chinese to most westerners. They were never censored. But their truth and its power are still only heard at the margins of society. The people who 'get' them understand they are too exceptional that what they have experienced could be explained to the rest. They are probably stunned that something so powerful can exist, yet have little more influence on the world than reading poetry to a moose. It's a cognitive dissonance experience.
Freedom of speech means little when people don't understand what they're hearing.
What's for sale, and out of reach for most, is influence. Freedom of speech plus freedom to disseminate plus the ability for people to understand equals communication. Freedom of speech is a only one piece of what's going on. That's why Twitter has outsize power. Should they be government-regulated? I don't know. How, and by whom?
Dr. Suess illustrated some of this in 'Horton Hears a Who.'
We should pay more attention to freedom to influence and how it is sold and bought.

[pgher]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be unrepentant. Therefore, I believe a lifetime ban is appropriate. It's like when he was impeached and acquitted: the message he got was that he could get away with whatever he wanted to do.

[marshwiggle]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

[writingprof]

In addition to the Trump ban, mainstream conservatives are being stripped of their Twitter followers by the thousands right now, according to multiple mainstream conservative outlets. I would provide non-partisan evidence, but, of course, there is no such thing as a non-partisan news source anymore, and no progressive source will cover the story. It's frustrating.

What is being reported by everyone is that Apple and Google Play are threatening to ban Parler (the free-speech-friendly Twitter competitor) unless it institutes a speech-control policy. 

So, to sum up:

The Left: "If you don't like Twitter's rules, build your own platform."
The Right: "Okay, it's called Parler."
The Left: "Sorry, we've made it impossible for anyone to download Parler."
The Right: "Oh, well, we've still got our websites, magazines, nonprofit organizations, and access to the American banking system."
The Left: "For now."

[spork]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

[. . .]

Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.

[jimbogumbo]

So, what should Twitter do about posters like Lin Wood? He has said that VP Pence should be taken out and hanged. People (not just a few, obviously) are clearly taking that literally.

And, for the record, I do not foR one second believe the gentleman who claimed he just picked the zip ties up To give them to police. But, even if I'm wrong, someone took them into the Capitol.

[pgher]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

More broadly, I think Twitter and Facebook are trying to dodge further regulation. "See? Once he crossed the line, we dealt with it." Never mind that they kept moving the line every other time he crossed it.

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.

I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."

[Parasaurolophus]

Isnt it dangerous to block free speech? 

Depends. At the extremes, yes. But, last I checked, Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, etc. are all doing just fine, despite banning some forms of speech.

But, as has been pointed out, this is not government censorship, which is what free speech rights actually pertain to.

Are there other alternatives to blocking Trump (and minions) from Twitter?

Sure. Prosecution (and conviction) for crimes, impeachment and removal, etc. I would imagine, however, that he's violated Twitter's terms of service any number of times, and removal from the platform is a perfectly reasonable, measured response in that case.

Does this take away the moral high ground from the USA (relative to China, for instance)?

What moral high ground?

Moreover: there's plenty that they do right and well in China, in addition to the bad. Same with the US (but let's not gloss over the significant harms which the US is responsible for worldwide). They bake bread in China, too, but that's hardly a good reason to stop doing so yourself.

[dismalist]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

[. . .]

Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.

Not quite. Social media companies are de facto public utilities and should be regulated as such [slaps cheek, hard]. Take a railroad analogy: Railroads are common carriers and they must provide service to any passenger willing and able to pay the fare. However, passengers may not behave as they wish -- they can't go around spraying paint on the walls of railcars, e.g.

Thus, the Trump question is whether he tweeted something illegal, like inciting to riot. This is a quintessential court case. Twitter must specify why it banned Trump [getting kicked off the train] and Trump must have the right to sue.

If these entities were ever actually regulated, I'm sure the corresponding law would say that you can't offend anybody.

Of course, these entities might one day become like town newspapers once were -- collecting points for the like minded. That would solve the problem without regulation.

[writingprof]

...but Twitter is a private company, not the government.

End of story.

[. . .]

Yes, try reading the First Amendment. You'll probably find it easier to understand than that dipshit Josh Hawley does.

If you're referring to his threatened lawsuit against Simon and Schuster, he's being disingenuous, not stupid.  He has no case and will not attempt to make one, as he is, despite appearances, a smart and expensively educated lawyer. 

But, dammit, I wish S&S hadn't cancelled his book deal.  Why must progressive organizations constantly bend over backwards to prove conservative grievance-mongers right?

[marshwiggle]

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.

I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."

What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).

[pgher]

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.

I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."

What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).

They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.

[marshwiggle]

But this goes back to the whole issue of whether they are a "platform" or a "publisher". If they are going to "edit" (in an extreme case, like this, of banning someone), then how much responsibility do they have to monitor EVERYTHING posted, and what rules do they have to follow about what kind of censorship they can (or possibly "must" ) engage in?

Other questions arise, such as:
Does the need to censor depend on the size of a person's following?
Does it depend on the popularity of a specific posting?

If some sort of non-profit organization started a similar platform, (so it wouldn't be a private company), should the rules be the same?

A non-profit organization is still (usually) a corporation. It just has different tax rules.

I think they're trying to do enough to avoid being liable for everything, so that they can make their own rules. All of these platforms do have rules; Trump dodged them by being "newsworthy."

What would they be "liable for"? And what possible line(s) could be drawn that could be reasonably upheld, given the millions of users and millions of posts every day? Most especially, if they can be liable for what they allow, they can no doubt be held laible for what they censor, (especially if can be shown to be somehow discriminatory).

They want to avoid the situation dismalist describes. Twitter etc. don't want to be regulated monopolies with some government agency forcing them to police user posts. They want the section 230 liability protections that separate them from e.g. newspapers.

But that's exactly the point. If they have the resources to police certain accounts, and choose to do so, they're acting like a publisher. If they claim it's impossible to police all accounts, and so they don't do it at all, they're acting like a platform. The more policing they do, the less they can claim the protection of a platform. If they don't spell out (and abide by) clear, objective, published rules about what they censor, they deserve to be treated like a publisher, with all of the liability that entails.

[nebo113]

I got put in FB jail for 24 hours once, and don't even know why.