This leads to 2 twitters, one for each side of the political aisle. Filter bubbles enabled by social media are already bad enough, a complete fracture of the public space along political lines is a distinctly dangerous idea.

I don’t disagree with you, I am just ruminating about making a personal decision to stop using Twitter. I did that years ago for Facebook (now, less than ten minutes a month in FB).

I am having some difficulty deciding whether I think the major Platforms should be public regulated services or the property of companies that can do anything they want to with their property. My opinion changes on this…

> My opinion changes on this…

It's a fine orthogonal discussion. There are several things worth considering in my mind:

* Perhaps these social media platforms are defectively designed

* Section 230 may need to be amended so that billion-dollar companies have more to hold them to account when things spread on their platforms

* CEOs could be criminally prosecuted when their companies lie (e.g., Facebook's ad revenue fraud in promoting FB video)

I think there are far better reasons to consider leaving social media than them suspending the personal account of a known provocateur who breaks rules all the time (her official government account is intact).

Yes I agree with you too. The issue shouldn’t be whether someone can post whatever they want on someone else’s platform- how did so few platforms(of dubious quality) become the main channels for communication? How did our internet become theirs? How can we fix it?

If she did that, the infrastructure services would do the censorship, just like they did to Parler.

Then shouldn’t you be angry at the infrastructure services and not Twitter?