Also there are de-facto monopolies on communications and social networks.

yeah because in practice free speech isn't black and white like these internet discussions like to pretend it is. Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?

there's nuance when defining free speech. Similar to the paradox of tolerance, you need to draw the line somewhere otherwise you'll be drowned out and taken over by speech that doesn't happen in good faith.

Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual.

Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan.

Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.

But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something.

Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.

Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections.

Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue.

There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.

they might only control the narrative on twitter. only around 10% of americans would be a monthly active user on twitter. the world is not twitter, or social media. It might feel like that. Plently of people are still getting their news from other places. the article is still on nypost.

> is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference?

Lets say CNN decides to not publish this story, is that election interference? Now their viewers won't know about it.

You could also say its election interference to run an unfounded story in the first place

https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-...

Maybe you should link a real source instead of your own website.

The online equivalent of the image I have painted above is, "You go on Twitter and you post something, and nobody is interested and it just gets ignored."

Twitter removing it is the same as someone pulling you off the box and shoving a sock in your mouth.

Until that actual public square exists online, Twitter, while they may have the legal right to silence you, have an ethical responsibility not to - because THEY chose to provide the platform that they knew everyone would use.

If they want ideological filtering they should make it part of the signup requirements.

You are under the misapprehension that Twitter (or Facebook or Google, or any corporation for that matter) has any ethics at all. They exist to make profit. And anything that doesn't align with that is unimportant to them.

I'd also point out that on Twitter or Facebook, you aren't the customer, you're the product. And they keep you in your little section of the feedlot (filter bubble) to keep you pacified and feeling good, as they profit off your PII and eyeballs.

Based on the description I would be interested to know which country we're talking about.

Voltaire did not say this.