I would argue the public is at a much higher risk of being tricked by giant monopolistic media organisations with very private interests than fringe lunatics. Murdoch was bad, but at least you didn't have to communicate through his tabloids.

Underneath all of this seems to be this assumption that Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey etc. are benevolent, and won't betray you. Putting aside whether that's right, it's incredibly short-sighted. Jack Dorsey owns 2% of Twitter's stock. Twitter is owned by index funds - they have control, not Jack. You don't want private equity dictating what kind of propaganda you're allowed to see.

This is a nonsense argument because the ownership structure of Twitter has not changed in 7 years. People are not getting booted now because of who the executives or investors are, they are betting booted because of what they chose to say on Twitter.

I don’t trust anyone to “not betray me.” I trust that if Twitter makes unpopular moderation decisions, they will lose in the marketplace. But if they make popular decisions, they will succeed in the marketplace, even if those decisions piss some people off. This is the basis for all platform moderation, including here on HN, or even something as simple as a grocery store asking a shouting customer to leave.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't think a coordinated ban of the sitting president across platforms is equivalent to a forum ban. And I don't think you think that either.

Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs.

You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?