I agree, but a step further, transparent moderation logs.
> I also call for folks banned by Twitter to embrace capitalism and build their own platform.
Ah yes the "build your own" theory. Build your own bank (Gab has gone through 10+ banks), build your own search engine, build your own app store (Parler found out the hard way), build your own economy. Monopolies and network effects be damned!
Soon we'll just balkanize the entire country into two so liberal companies don't have to have icky conservatives on their platforms or in earshot.
Your other points were addressed in my reply to your other 2 adjacent comments.
Capitalism poster children - the supreme examples - are those who aren't afraid to keep trying until they overcome the challenges.
I believe the term Trump used to describes the ones complain instead was Losers. Or maybe it's Failures or Quitters some other derogatory.
I got a service call. Out. Maybe back later. It's been very internety.
I believe the reason is that few-to-no super wealthy RW interests are lining up to fund a Gab-like echo chamber.
As far as hosts go, if A-H say "We'd prefer you not amplify misinformation here", that's business. No whingy snowflakes here. We'll go to I-Z (and the 500 Dr.Suess letters that come after) until we find one that does.
This is certainly doable. Far more harmful stuff is hosted every day.
I call for a trend that results in mega corporations publicizing internal procedures that have a meaningful, lasting impact on the public. This information would allow us to better understand how we're being affected by their policies.
I also call for folks banned by Twitter to embrace capitalism and build their own competing platform. This seems a more reasonable approach than having Govs mandate speech.
> Do you like the status quo?
I do not like the current trend of Gov officials, of both parties, to try to gain more power over speech.
> I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them.
You can want that. It is unconstitutional for Govs to mandate they carry certain speech, however.
> I want transparency.
Me too. I believe my top remark here addresses that in a principled way.