Agreed, but what's actually unbelievable is that people seem to not realize that it goes both ways, and I'm just as free to shame and ridicule someone for their speech as they are to express their shitty little racist ideas.

[No, we got away from the practices I mentioned above through discussion that did not take place in a "public" town square. Basically anywhere else, but certainly not the "public" town square. One reason, among many, is that a "town square" is not nearly as ubiquitous as you seem to believe, historically. Dominant ideas can easily and are frequently challenged on Twitter and in modern discourse generally, it's just not tolerant of the racist, awful ideas that some might want to discuss. It's not going to lead to progress to continue to discuss how one race is superior to another, for example, and yet that's all some groups seem to want to talk about.]

Sure. No one is arguing you shouldn't be able to ridicule someone online (I guess it depends on who you're ridiculing right?). But I don't think you should get banned from the platform for doing so. That's the problem people have with Twitter. Especially since its very inconsistently applied and very out of touch with what the overwhelming majority of the country believes.

There's also a cultural aspect that can't really be solved by Twitter, like petitioning someone to be fired for making a gay joke ten years ago.

Don't the owners of twitter get some say? If you can't keep your argument with some nazi p.o.s. dialed down to an 8, why should they have to host either of you? I mean they own the platform, you and the nazi can take it to DMs on some other platform.

Twitter agrees! You are not banned from that platform for ridiculing anyone.

Twitter suspended someone for saying "Ok dude..."

[0] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ok-dude-twitter-susp...

@ZubyMusic tweeted 44 minutes ago, so no he was not banned.

I guess that the "appeal" was ruled reasonable and zuby made it back? Of course Washington Examiner will never follow up on the matter as they're well known, like Fox, to print front page knee jerks and way-back-page retractions.

Washington Examiner is not known for its accurate reporting. [0]

[0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

Sure, but it doesn’t change what I wrote. In fact your non-peer reviewed site had this to say about CNN:

“ CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines such as this: Trump pounces on Justice Department report findings.”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So are we gonna be biased or call every guilty party out?

So you're saying, "What about CNN?" then? [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Or just disproving your statement. Depending on your mental capacity.

Or was your statement made such that only the right wing makes such headlines?

Or are you russian and just trying to sow division?

Which is it?

Also you still didn’t change what I said, just avoided it by trying to claim “whataboutism”. Fight it all you want, it’s not going to change the truth.

Which statement does, "What about CNN?" disprove?

Your implication that only Fox spits out clickbait. You seem to be dead set on hiding behind whataboutism and ignoring the facts. You want to smear Fox’s name, but fight veraciously to defend CNN. That’s all anybody needs to know, and is clearly on display in your comments here.

Freedom of association is also a core liberal value.