Isn't it a bit conceited to think you'll have access to that audience? I don't believe my twitter account is reaching that many people. If the message is strong enough and will get to that many people somehow, might as well start a blog.

> I don't believe my twitter account is reaching that many people.

That's up to your message though. If people share your tweet, it might. If you're banned from the platform, that's not an option, no matter how many people find your opinion valuable, they'll never see it.

The amount of people who see even the most popular tweets is a small subsection of Twitter. If you're banned from the platform, sucks to be you. You shouldn't have violated their TOS. If you didn't understand the TOS then you shouldn't have joined. Pewdiepie is one of the biggest people on Youtube, how many people have heard of him? Outside of that slice of society not many. How many people could tell you off the top of their head who Marshall Mathers is? Noam Chomsky? Outside of tech how many people know who Linus is? The point is there are very, very few people who have their voices heard. Even famous people aren't guaranteed to have their tweets read. If you want a platform where people will listen you have to control your own platform, like Oprah or the pope. You have to have as many people following you as Oprah to have a guaranteed voice.

> You shouldn't have violated their TOS.

Since their TOS are vague, and they enforce it very discriminatory, deplatforming is obviously not about "violating TOS".

> The point is there are very, very few people who have their voices heard.

I agree wholeheartedly. My point isn't that everybody on Twitter automatically reaches everybody else on Twitter. It's that he has the chance. If you tweet something that everybody loves, you can go viral. If you're banned, you can't.

Everybody can run for office, but not everybody can win. If you block people from running in the first place, you better have some damn good reasons, and they better not be "I don't like their political opinions".

Why do you need a Twitter sized audience?

People were able to organize and communicate effectively on the web before Twitter, Facebook, etc. Not being on one of the big social media silos isn't de facto censorship, it's just slightly less convenient than being on them.

But it's still entirely possible to build an audience elsewhere.

Isn't the fact that gab is dominated by fascists and racists evidence that Twitter isn't banning people just for being conservative?

Nobody is entitled to a Twitter-sized audience. I agree monopolies are bad but the fact that right-wing tolerant platforms are shitshows and niche compared to more mainstream ones is perhaps not the fault of the left. Maybe, just maybe, there aren't that many people holding (and willing to listen to) the kind of opinions commonly posted on gab et al.

Arguing for deplatforming while using a throwaway account to not get deplatformed on your main is somewhat ironic. ;)

Not sure that athrowaway was arguing for deplatforming, though...

I understood that "right-wing tolerant platforms" are different from platforms as deplatforming anything right-wing, as in "not tolerating" it, and that this would be all good, but I might have misunderstood.