As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done.

Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.

I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply.

Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.

You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress...

Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.

> You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress...

There is a large amount of legal precedent in the US for the government being able to compel speech of private businesses, both in laws and court rulings. If you don't believe me, go look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label. But we have precedents that go much deeper than that, up to and including compelled speech that goes against the religious principles of a business's founders. There is no realistic argument for the government being unable to compel a private company like Twitter to cease censoring posts on political grounds.

They're not unable, it's just not how the laws are structured currently - regulation is always an option. Nutrition labels weren't required pre-1990[0], but then regulation made them required, so you can look at the current amount of social media regulation as a result of the United States' governance over the past 20 years.

0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_

>You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech

Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.

why should we care whether its harmful to democracy?

if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate

Many would agree that communication platforms are essentially becoming public utilities, and should be treated as such. Twitter may only have the ability to control speech on the "platform they own", but the shockwaves caused by calculated censorship impact very far outside the walls of the platform itself.

When a platform with this type of power starts abusing it immediately before a major election, it's time to rethink the governmental protections afforded to them in order to feasibly exist.

I don't buy the moral legitimacy of groups of people doing wrong merely because they are recognized as a "private company" and not being legally bound to act a certain way. So,

> a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company ... is an unsustainable, doomed model

is exactly right. It's just so damn hard to pull people out of it!

But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.

Since this ban is helping the Biden campaign by keeping a damaging story from being spread before the election, it can be seen as an in kind campaign contribution.

And for that there are some strict laws!

If the laws actually apply for this, I have no idea...

Imagine how much Fox News and a hundred talk radio shows would contribute in that scenario.

I am in the camp of, once you open your company to political communication and news you are beholden to be open to all such activity as long as it is legal. You don't get to choose and the reason you don't get to choose is because filtering one view over another provides a service to the view permitted and as such is political speech and or contribution to one party over another.

As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account

Pretty standard for a company, for better or for worse.

Meh. Just go to the NYPost directly if you want.

We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.

Sure, but if they're going to be an editorialized platform they should be held liable for the content of each and every tweet.

Not sure what this actually means - liable for what?

They already ban tweets required by law. What other liability is there?

If Twitter were held liable for user's posts they would probably ban all right-wing content since that's were most of the libel I see comes from. For example reddit tried hard to keep /r/TheDonald around but it turned out to be an impossible task. Especially in online right-wing youth culture there's a strong anything goes, ends justify the means, trolling for the lulz, strain where they find it more acceptable to spread deliberate misinformation.

Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?

GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.

Ah, yeah, that's fair.

I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly

"The false conclusion I jumped to is someone else's fault for giving me too little information"

That's a terrible excuse. Lack of information isn't the same as misinformation.