Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on short messages posted online, and it's no real loss if I don't use Twitter at all. The closest internet company to being a monopoly is clearly Google, and that's because it's nearly impossible to avoid them. Twitter ain't there yet.

Microsoft wasn't the only operating system on the market. It doesn't matter, in legal terms a monopoly isn't owning 100% of a platform. It is having a majority of a market and engaging in anticompetitive practices, including controlling access to goods and services. Sorry, but Twitter, Facebook, and Google could all be subject to antitrust actions.

If Twitter had a monopoly, you might be correct.

The problem is not the existence of anti-trust laws and other regulations - these things are good. The problem is the blatant political use of these tools. If a company becomes a problem to the Trump regime, they will use the full array of existing laws to prosecute them, at the same time when they are dismantling legislation that targets their allies.

Agreed, but also -- if it's an issue of antitrust law, use antitrust law! Not the CDA by way of an executive order.

At least this President is being upfront about it. Previous administration did things more secretly. See, Operation Chokepoint.

Are you saying that open criminality is better than hiding crimes?

Great move by President Trump, social media companies think they can ban/shadow ban anyone for anything that they don't like, it's time for some reality check.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this mindset.

It comes back to the question of whether a company should be able to deny the service of a customer based on its own internal decision making. So lets use a real world example, how about a baker denying service to a person based on sexual orientation. Should the company be forced to provide a service if it goes against their conscience? I believe the answer should and always will be: No. However, the economic and social ramifications of that company denying service is at their own risk and demise. Furthermore, any company should be allowed to modify, terminate, and/or otherwise control whatever service they provide. Which is the agreed upon User Agreement Terms that all people must agree to when they sign up for a social media service. This agreement means that you acknowledge that you will play by their rules, and that you forego your First Amendment rights absolutely, at the mercy and whims of the social media company.

That is the fucking point.

Whatever users write on social media is at the complete control via the User Agreement Terms unless otherwise stated. So yes, users have full control of what they write on social media and a company has zero reason to maintain, distribute, or display any information that users create for any reason whatsoever.

Social media companies CAN ban/shadow ban anyone for anything that they don't like. You are forever at the mercy of a private company and you did so freely by agreeing to their terms. If you don't like this approach, don't use social media. Economics. I do not want an internet where a private company is forced to be the voice box of any particular political philosophy that they did not choose, let alone ANY agenda that they do not choose or agree with.

That is the danger of insisting that social media should be at the behest of the First Amendment. If a person is ignorant of this fact, they need a REAL reality check.

Legally I see that you make a good point but morally I do not support such behavior by any corporation, specially as large and dominant as Twitter and FB.

Baker analogy doesn't quite cut it as there are many other bakers in town, give me 5 other alternatives to Twitter?

Yes, I also agree with you from a moral standpoint that it doesn't seem right, but if you agree to their terms by creating an account, you play by their rules.

Honestly, the point I'm trying to make with the baker analogy is only to understand who has the final say: the company has the final say on what actions they will perform and the customer has the final say on where they spend their time and money.

There are actually plenty of alternatives to Twitter, but obviously these corporations own the largest market share. However, to blame Twitter or Facebook for that is misguided. They are as big as they are because customers have decided to agree to their terms, and if those terms change, Twitter and others have to send updated User Terms, at which point all users have every right to cancel their accounts. Any complaints about a company's policies whilst still being a customer is their own fault. :)

Why can't they?

Because we value individual freedom in this country including free speech.

Individual freedoms mean having the right to decide what content you want to host on your privately owned servers. Forcing companies to host content against their will their servers is anti-freedom and anti-free-speech. It's no different from forcing someone to place sign on their yard for a political candidate they dislike.

A private company being able to ban/shadowban people is part of their own free speech. Not to mention free speech doesn't extend into the private sector.

Twitter is not private, at least from the platform discussion point of view, anyone can see Tweets even without having an account. It's more akin to modern day digital town square.

Twitter is private from the point of view that matters at hand; that is, the legal one. Whether or not you can see content without an account has no bearing on this as this is a matter of ownership and liability. Even if it did, you cannot participate in those discussions without an account.

Laws pertaining to free speech do not apply here, as has been established time and again, partly because, like I said, it is their free speech in the wider gamut to remove things they don't want. Twitter's right to free speech exists in the public space, but your right to speech extends as far as Twitter's terms of service.

This all seems mostly disingenuous anyway -- the bias is very exaggerated. The right is mostly backed by armies of bots (a violation) and generally people who flaunt the rules more (anecdotally). Just something else to be outraged at.

Ok, fine then wait and see new legislation that will be put in place soon to regulate these social media monopolies.

If that is the case, then so be it. At least that would be the correct way, even if I disagree with it. These are in no way monopolies. You have an enormous amount of choice when it comes to where to post whatever it is you want to post, regardless of whether anyone follows you there or not.

It's private in the sense that the servers are privately owned and therefore the owners should have the right to decide what goes on there.

Counterexamples:

Suppose a phone company (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.) decided to scan your speech for political content, then degrade your phone call quality if the algorithm decides that you seem to oppose the lobbying efforts of the company.

Suppose a package company (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) decided that political items for one party would simply be destroyed, with the tracking number disappearing from the system. When you order a box of lawn signs for Biden, they never show up. Alternately, the packages aren't accepted for shipment, or they arrive with deliberate damage.

That's the private sector. Is this the world you want?

Yes. Telecom is not completely private sector as they are regulated as utilities, and for good reason.

Courier services are pretty much private entities that have liability due to the fact they do not own the things they are delivering (this is a really nuanced topic). Lying about the practice and doing it transparently would be different stories.

I don't think social media is as nuanced. If you don't like it, go start your own or use one of the many that do not censor legal content. The burden of reproducibility is very low.