Man, why are you guys so bad at analogies? Here’s something that’s analogous - go to a public square, it doesn’t even have to be a private shopping center, take your clothes off, display pornography, and generally rant and rave like a lunatic, using offensive language. See if there is a limit to that. Then try the…

+1...

*cough* bullshit *cough* I went to a college that is in the same tier of unmitigated progressive hippydom as Oberlin and Berkeley and we had a Young Republicans, complete with speakers and everything.

“Uses public infrastructure” is not any kind of metric here. Literally every private media outlet and social media platform of every persuasion uses public infrastructure in one way or another, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t get to control who can use their service.

So by this logic I should be able to go into any church and say whatever I want, considering they are public and subsidized by not paying taxes, but still using infrastructure. No one is suppressing them, they can do all their yelling on a competing platform, or grab their bootstraps and create their own platform as…

Laws haven’t caught up with the digital world. Just like digital video games are a mess for consumer rights, protection of speech is a mess for social platforms.

Okay, but here’s the thing: You can’t say, “There’s a moral dimension to consider here” when arguing the technicalities of whether or not this is public speech, but then say, “Hey, look, I don’t want to get into morality” when someone points out that the speech being censored is a literal call to violence by fucking…

Counterpoint: Certain “expressions” should be suppressed.

First they came for the fascists, and I did not speak out, because they’re fascists.

The college administrations allowed the conservatives to speak. It was the students that protested. Liberty U’s adminstration prevents liberal speakers from speaking at all as a matter of policy.

UCBerkeley spends millions ensuring neo Nazis can be safe when they practice their first amendment rights. Christian colleges outright ban left wingers. You literally have no idea what you’re arguing, you’re using false equivalency and you need to fucking stop.

But Twitter is not the government, and most people understand that quite clearly. Twitter does not have the power to put you in jail and can not make laws. They are, in actuality, a private company. Your mention of public infrastructure and taxpayer subsidies could be applied to many other businesses - my former…

They purged bot accounts...And Twitter bans people for violating their terms of service. Conservatives are not banned because they have conservative values; they’re banned because they harass other people.

“Modern fundamentalism”...huh? A company is choosing to enforce the rules that it set for the users on its platform. You may disagree with Twitter’s rules, or feel that they are enforced in a manner which is opaque and selective (I’d agree with you on that), but if your contention is that Twitter shouldn’t be allowed…

So deleting bots, ostensibly the purpose of which is to mislead people into believing that these users (most of which use their platform to preach hate) have more followers than they actually do is now equivalent to state level sponsorship? A “when they came for the bots no on spoke up” type deal?

Am I the only one uncomfortable that freedom of speech now appears to be policed by private corporations like Facebook and Twitter?

increasing suppression of expression...

Also you need to factor in your ‘freedom of speech’ is not a global thing - apparently we don’t actually have that as a governmental right over here in the UK, but also our government is not asshole-ish enough (yet) to try and invoke something against it either...

Let me post this AGAIN.

“I hate to tell you this, but places like UC Berkely and Oberlin are as close minded and fundamentalist as any Christian college.” Thus proving you have been to none of these.