I think the difference behind the political fireworks is this: conservatives already revel in sub-communities like churches where they can protect themselves from unwanted speech. Progressives are starting to dominate open places like universities to the extent that they want the same privilege there.
1. Not leftist
2. In EuropeBoth want freedom of speech sometimes and both want to be able to block out dissenting voices at others.
The trick is finding a balance. Too big of an echochamber can be unhealthy, too small of one and little discussion about core beliefs gets discussed (everything gets sidetracked by the dissenters).
Young conservatives definitely seem to be outnumbered online, and I've seen them put up walls so they can discuss their beliefs without being constantly picked apart by people with alternative beliefs.
So I think the divide on ideological lines is unrealistic. Just human nature (good and bad).
As a live-right-now example, the mods of /r/The_Donald on Reddit are preemtively banning users before Trump's AMA to prevent dissent, and have stated plainly they will delete any unflattering questions.
You're example is false equivalency. And what you call a preemptive ban, you'll actually discover that they are quite used to being brigaded on that subreddit and they know who participates. And bans aren't necessarily permanent there.
Having rules that say "we don't value free speech or discourse" doesn't excuse them.
Also, reddit allows you to subscribe, but twitter creates a stronger relationship between poster and followers. You'd be subscribed to a particular person but when they are banned, all their history is gone, you no longer see anything. It's like someone came into your house and took away one of your favorite TV channels, as well as anything you had recorded from that channel on your DVR.
Who is this THEY you keep referring to anyway? You keep saying 'they' like readers are just supposed to know.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/free-speech-...
No, they weren't. They were authoritarian conservatives. (In the US, there's often a confusion between "conservative" and "libertarian", and if you confuse those and assume anything that isn't libertarian must be progressive, I can see how you'd make that mistake, but Bush/Cheney is about as far from progressive as you can get.)
> Conservatives and libertarians have criticized Bush for greatly increased domestic spending, creating a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failing to veto a single bill, and expanding both the size and scope of government
What are you talking about?
And a "privately-owned platform" that is open to the public, used by a nontrivial amount of people, advertised by the owners as a place for public discussion, quoted in the media, etc etc etc isn't so "private" anymore.
Hmm. I'd like to hear those arguments, since by itself the notion doesn't sound particularly compelling.
It's a problem with freedom of speech and private property in general, and why some people have considered the idea of treating large social platforms as closer to utilities rather than businesses.
No, they're not. They're the ones saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protest many things like Chik-Fil-A's support of gay marriage bans, protesting police departments that act like black lives don't matter, etc.