If Twitter wants control over what's published on their site, then they give up their rights (their 'free harbor'-alike protections) to not be held responsible for the content they censor and let through.
Twitter et al. are where modern speech happens. They pushed themselves into this position, and thus upholding the human right to free speech also falls upon them.
So long as Twitter is not shut down, then perhaps some government oversight (to the limit of holding Twitter responsible for what and who they censor) is appropriate.
Free speech, in this case, trumps my intense dislike of our current administration.
>If Twitter wants control over what's published on their site, then they give up their rights (their 'free harbor'-alike protections) to not be held responsible for the content they censor and let through.
Where is this in US law? Are you confusing DMCA safe harbor issues with speech?
All platforms take control over content - otherwise they could not remove child porn, PII, etc., and they don't lose DMCA safe harbor exemptions, which only applies to copyrighted items posted by users.
I didn't conflate anything. You claimed Twitter loses "rights" by exercising control over content, and I asked where you got that idea. Where is the law that backs your claim? Do you have one?
It doesn't have to be a black and white a binary choice as you suggest. Maybe that's what you'd like because it makes the rule easier to grasp but it's possible to allow a threshold on how much they can interfere before things get to a point where a heavy handed solution like government involvement is needed to regulate them.
Twitter et al. are where modern speech happens. They pushed themselves into this position, and thus upholding the human right to free speech also falls upon them.
So long as Twitter is not shut down, then perhaps some government oversight (to the limit of holding Twitter responsible for what and who they censor) is appropriate.
Free speech, in this case, trumps my intense dislike of our current administration.