> Twitch does not represent the US government. It's just a private entity doing business in the USA.

This is funny. Do you think someone confused Twitch with the US government? Do you think only the government should be concerned with free speech? Do you think corporate censorship isn’t important?

I see comments like yours frequently and get confused. Of course government censorship is more dangerous than corporate censorship. But saying that Twitch isn’t government is like responding to BLM with “well, technically all lives matter.” Of course it is true, but not really relevant.

The issue here is that Twitch doesn’t seem to respect free speech and build it into their services. Legally, they are allowed to do this. Ethically, that’s bad. Ethically, companies not supporting and building and fostering free speech leads us to some sort of Disney hellscape where all video calls must include smiles or people get booted, etc etc

Slippery slope hyperbole aside, I think it seems pretty fundamental to me that private communication platforms for the general public need to have free speech as an ideal and apply restrictions carefully. Making blanket band without considering context seems like it will make the experience less useful for communication.

That being said, I’m surprised there was even a confederate flag emoji ever available and surprised took this long to remove.

you can watch how parler evolves compared to other platforms that do not uphold your ideals, and see how it goes. maybe you are new to the internet, those who have been here a while have seen a lot of online forums without any moderation and seen what they turn into. it was never good.

And it's already banning specific content. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Content_and_moderation

Did you see the second part of my comment?

> Completely free speech has never existed on internet platforms

I read your whole comment and I’m not calling for completely free speech like yelling “fire” in a theater.

I just find it odd that you brought up government like it’s relevant to free speech and censorship by corporations. I’m genuinely curious as to maybe you think corporations censoring speech is appropriate. And I like this forum to be able to ask.

In my mind, I don’t want the phone company bleeping me out when I curse. Or disconnecting my service because they think I might be buying drugs. Phone companies are regulated by government to legally require these kinds of free speech requirements. But that doesn’t mean I can crank call people, or spam people, there’s still rules.

I think my problem with these companies is that they are arbitrary in their restrictions. And they seem biased politically.

Perhaps they aren’t biased. But similarly, while being required to show ID to vote may seem reasonable, in practice it discriminated against certain political parties.

Ah but it didn’t used to be like this.

Correct, but how people use the web has changed over time. Content and interaction was also far less centralized. I had to dig for specific channels on IRC to find the kind of hateful discussion I can find in 5 seconds on Twitter. There was far less spam and noise in those days.

Many of us run an ad blocker in our browser. Is this not censorship of certain types of speech?

I block ads to not be tracked, subjected to malware and unwanted annoyances. I do not block ads to censor speech.

Censorship needn't be the primary motivator for it to occur.

It’s not a motivator at all and your argument is invalid. Secondly, hiding things on your own screen is not censorship, hiding things on someone else’s screen is.

>Do you think someone confused Twitch with the US government?

Yes, this is exactly what's happening. Or, maybe the inverse: people think "free speech" means they can say whatever they want without consequences. This is not the letter nor spirit of the law.

Corporations are already deciding what videos you see, whether you like it or not. They are already censoring.

That may be true, but why is that a good thing? Would it not be better for users, if private platforms also provided the same free speech guarantee that the government is obliged to give.

>Would it not be better for users, if private platforms also provided the same free speech guarantee that the government is obliged to give.

No, because forcing social media platforms to publish speech they object to would infringe upon the free speech and free association rights of those platform owners. Twitter has the right to decide what it will and will not allow on its platform, and it has the right to change the rules as it sees fit. And I guarantee that everyone with an account had to agree to terms of service to that effect.

And no, just in case this comes up, Twitter doing so does not mean they somehow stop becoming a "platform" and become a "publisher" and should lose Section 230 protection. That's not how Section 230 works, and the distinction between platform and publisher commonly used in these arguments doesn't really exist in a legal sense - Twitter is allowed to moderate their platform beyond merely removing illegal content, and can even express political bias in doing so - while remaining not liable for user supplied content.

I think it's more accurate to view the first amendment as a limit on government, not as a fundamental right the government gives to all people, in all circumstances.

Oh yes displaying the confederate flag which is protected speech, is comparable to death threats now? Yes Twitch isn’t a government agency, they can censor speech however they like, much like Reddit.

Perhaps we are too used to take free speech on private walled gardens for granted. These sites used to pretend to be proponents of free speech, but now that veil is being lifted and we see what they truely are. Is one not allowed to complain about this transformation? To the casual observer, these sites set the impression that they are a public forum yet they enforce their policies with a strict partisan bias. That is the crux of the issue.