This is such a lazy argument that I'm so tired of hearing applied to quasi-public services. Maybe Twitch isn't a great example, but a few social media sites are. They might not be the government, but they're platforms with billions of people on them. Justice Thomas recently pointed out that we'll soon have no choice but to grapple with this distinction and determine how principles like the First Amendment apply to non-governmental public forums. I think it's a bit naive to hand wave it away as "if it's not the government, the principles of free speech don't apply." Maybe not legally... yet... but when people complain about this, it's the spirit of the 1A that they're concerned about, and I hope that some forthcoming legal doctrine will provide some legitimacy to their concerns so I can stop hearing this trite counterargument of "muh facebook isn't the government."

It's not a lazy argument, you're just tired of hearing it. It's actually a very strong argument. "quasi-public", "maybe Twitch isn't a great example", "maybe not legally... yet", "some forthcoming legal doctrine"-- these are weak qualifiers. What are you proposing, exactly? How many users is a service allowed to have before their content moderation policies are nationalized?

Somewhat ironically, whatever you're proposing would almost certainly require weakening the first amendment. Personally, I'd prefer a strong first amendment (which is concrete and actually means something) to the nebulous "spirit of the 1A".

> whatever you're proposing would almost certainly require weakening the first amendment

I assume you're referring to the 1A rights of the corporation, e.g. Twitter's right to decline to publish content it disagrees with. I agree with you there. It's a complex problem. My complaint is more with the argument that only the government can restrict free speech. It's a lazy argument because the reality is far more nuanced than that. For example, consider the fact that AT&T doesn't have the right to drop your phone calls when you start talking about Verizon to the person on the other end of the line.

It's totally fair to talk about the "spirit" of the constitution -- that's why we have the Supreme Court in the first place, to interpret the constitution when its words are not clear. I would also note that the Declaration of Independence doesn't mention any self-evident truth about corporations, but it does describe the rights of the people, and government's role in preserving them. If corporations appear to interfere with those inalienable rights, it's not unreasonable for the government to step in to preserve them.

Your belief that large social media platforms should be more permissive has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is a limitation on a grant of power to a non-human entity (i.e. the Federal government). The idea that the "spirit" of the 1A constrains the actions of human individuals is somewhat perverse.

Sometimes platforms ban people I think they shouldn't. We agree on that much. I hope user pressure pushes them into more fair and transparent processes. But I strongly believe they should have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want. And on ideological grounds, I strongly oppose any weakening of the First Amendment.

> What are you proposing, exactly?

Do you require a detailed solution before you will even admit there is a problem?

No, presumption of innocence is first and foremost a moral principle. Our legal systems are reflections of our collective morals.

The moral principle in this case is that we don't think jail (or worse) should happen without being proven guilty. That does not mean we collectively believe all consequence requires proof of being guilty. Morals and punishment are not binary systems.

There's a point where this kind of ostracism becomes worse than jail. For many Twitch users, streaming is a substantial part of their social environment or even their full-time job. If I had to choose between a couple weeks in jail and a lifetime ban from working in my industry, or a couple weeks in jail and being banned from all my friend group chats, I'd take jail in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, one person's ostracism is another's right of association. It is just as wrong to force someone to work with a person they do not want to work with, as long as that reason is justifiable (i.e. not a protected class)

For Twitch and other corporations it seems like it's not the "right of association", but more the "sin of association" that makes them heavy handed towards individuals with banning, censoring and demonetizing:

The extreme social media dynamics somehow holds these corporations accountable for any wrongdoings someone might post on their platforms which is impossible to prevent or moderate in a timely fashion. They respond with more sophisticated and sweeping algorithms that lead to self-censorship by content creators and unexpected actions like shutting down the demoscene event a few days ago.

Well, I agree with what you're saying, although I'm not sure we're on the same page. I don't think Twitch should be forced to work with people they'd rather ban; I see some proposals in other comment threads to pass a law, and I don't support that. What I want is for Twitch to recognize that this new policy is a bad idea and voluntarily retract it.

Nitpick: The offenses for which Twitch is considering removing users usually result in much more than a few weeks in jail, if convicted.

Further, Twitch is not the entire industry, the same way that Microsoft is not the industry.

Many of the offenses are in that category. My concern is the offenses like "violent extremism" and "membership in a known hate group", which are not generally illegal and very easy to abuse for censorious purposes. (I've seen quite a few people identify mainstream organizations as "hate groups" because of some political dispute.)

Presumption of evidence is morally important because the force of the state is ultimate: they can deprive a person of life and liberty as a consequence.

The suggestion that it is immoral for a different standard being applied to a private clubhouse is not something that was supported by the influential thinkers who gave us the former idea.

In a capitalistic society where corporations hold as much power or more than governments do in our day to day lives you surely must see how this is a moral principle that must apply to them also. There's life ruining things beyond jail such as being homeless and shunned.

For sure, and we've done that through regulations where appropriate: e.g. landlord/tenant law, utility commissions, etc.

Twitch is hardly in that category, though.

Presumption of innocence exists in the legal system for a reason, mainly that it is necessary for a judgement to be rendered fairly.

Twitch is not the legal system, but it is passing judgement and renders punishment that can be harsher than the justice system in some cases (losing your main income compared to a small fine). Therefore, it needs presumption of innocence as much as the justice system. I rest my case.