Exaclty, I don't know how many times I've heard mention of Trump's Tweets in the news and elsewhere.

if they cared about being on the right side of history, which apparently they do, if only for a "inadvertently limited" amount of time, they would forget about the traffic. That traffic is from mostly people people better off not being (a part of you engagement)

Our nation is built on open discourse. One could argue that rather than silence opposition, one could inform the population. The "mother and father know best" attitude helps no one and fosters doubt into the integrity of things

The last four years are damning evidence that the so-called "Marketplace of Ideas" is mostly just a petri dish for Fascism.

The fact no one wants to accept in this context is that markets need to be regulated or else they get taken over by snake oil salesmen and racketeers.

Open discourse doesn’t mean giving everyone a platform.

Once a single voice is reaching enough people, I would argue that increasing the distribution of their words will on average decrease the amount of discourse. Almost no replies will be heard by a super-celeb, and it's hard to have a meaningful conversation with anyone else in the morass of replies.

Isn't twitter doing exactly that by labeling each tweet explaining the lie(s) it contains?

>That traffic is from mostly people people better off not being (a part of you engagement)

I disagree. Given that many of those folks have not only continued to engage with the soon-to-be ex-POTUS, even to the extent that they are happy to be suckers...err......donors to his grift[0]...err.."Election Defense Fund", I'd think that Twitter would want to keep those folks around -- the more gullible someone is, the more likely they'll click on ads and generate revenue.

And advertisers stand to make money on conversions, assuming those folks haven't already given all their money to the Trump "Election Defense" con...err...fundraising drive.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundra...