> The government should treat them like public uni

You want the government funding Twitter's operations?

Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.

The government should create a law to treat them as public places because our rights can be infringed. That doesn't mean Twitter should be funded publically.

Misbehaving != alternative opinion.

Shall we nationalize my employer, too, because I can't yell "fuck you" at my boss?

Public universities have additional restrictions because they are organs of the state. Twitter is very definitively not in that category.

You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. I think you should learn how to follow a conversation.

If a utility company is privately owned and it's denying service because you have 'different opinion about utility prices' thus threatening your life will you stand it?

> You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all.

No, we're not. Trump's tweets are still there. He retains the ability to post. All Twitter did was exercise their own free speech by adding a note below it.

Yeah, how about your speech being marked retarded every time? The court has this power and it can declare a person incompetent. But does twitter have this kind of authority?

Also I was not talking about the link being left, I was talking about your account terminated.

There's no inherent right to go unchallenged when raising unsubstantiated claims. Providing facts-checking can be seen as a service in those cases where it is important that the public make informed decisions based on facts. Social media has been mandated to combat fake news, and this is within their mandate, as well as outright banning any person or post on their private platform.

It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have, but please don't conflate the issue with personal vendettas of some public figures, or too much toleration of relativistic alternative facts.

hey! if fact-checking is a service, they could un-bundle it. Let the user choose! Let Twitter and Facebook and etc be platforms after all!

>It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have

I was specifically talking about this issue and it's the commentators that went to "personal vendettas or introduction of relativistic alternative facts."

Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing.

The intent of the 1st Amendment applies most strongly to political and religious views. Liberals love it when the 1st Amendment is used to defend communism, terrorists, or profane art. If Communists and Antifa were being squashed by Twitter, they'd be playing victim.

> private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing.

This is entirely and old thing. Every private company runs on publicly funded infrastructure. Roads, sewers, etc...

First amendment claims with respect to those things you state are loved by liberals are almost certainly to stop government censorship. That is after all what the First Amendment is about.

There is no applicability of the First Amendment with respect to what a private company may censor. This is why Trump may talk about "freedom" but his executive order will not be grounded on any First Amendment claim.

Rather, Trump will essentially force the interpretation that CDA 230 should only apply to "politically neutral" actors. The result will be that social media companies will not be able to "censor" content that might be political. Again, not because of the Bill of Rights but because the liability shield provided by CDA 230.

The practical result will be that all content that is not clearly illegal (and potentially content that is) will be fair game and unable to be censored as any censorship will risk a claim against political neutrality and jeopardize CDA 230 protection.