>More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices.

I wonder if people who say things like this actually use Twitter. Twitter has far less moderation than the other social media giants. It’s a high school popularity contest, and the cool kids didn’t need blue check marks from the teachers to be cool.

"As a liberal, twitter has gone way too far to the left in silencing voices?" Twitter moderation is blind on harassment, nazis who brag about it are using the platform to dox people without any repercussions, send death threats, etc. what the hell are you even talking about?

Sounds like a job for the legal system, not yet another secret kangaroo court run by people with a very narrow ideological bent.

The legal system is too slow. If twitter couldn't moderate itself it wouldn't be moderated. That may sound good, but honestly, think about it for a second. That would pretty much be the end of twitter.

> blind

Wow that's very troubling. Can you show some examples of studies, or representative serious anecdotes?

Blue checks do not equal blue voices, but you already know that. Twitter is the worst mainstream platform when it comes to right wing propaganda and scientific misinformation. Free speech in this case is code for saying anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons. Twitter excels at it already, let's not make it worse.

Do you think the government should censor incorrect or hateful speech and if not, why not?

The conversation is about Twitter, why are you bringing up the government.

It's a really simple question (yes or no, and just a single sentence about the reasoning if "no") and I hope the principle of charity can be extended when I say the discussion will come back to Twitter very quickly.

The OP hasn't provided their answer but I'd be interested in your answer too!

I wasn't talking about the government. Don't distract from the topic.

You were talking about free speech:

> Free speech in this case is code for saying anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons.

I was just curious if the government's guarantee not to censor political speech is just as ill-advised. A quick "yes" would take about 5 seconds to give, or of not, just a short sentence about what the motivation is for keeping the government out of policing political speech. e.g. "If the government can suppress political speech, then..."

Doesn't seem like a huge ask for the curious!

Should you be allowed to yell something like "fire" in a crowded indoor space? That you want to murder the president? That, insert x culture or race, "should be exterminated"? Ultimately, I would like to hear about this government guarantee you speak of and what you believe/what is codified into whatever human construct that you think allows unlimited speech of any kind at any time aka your vision of 'free speech'.

No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings.

Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.

I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps you are international? A Public company is one that is owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If it were a private company he could not do that.

No, it is literally a public company. TWTR is traded on NASDAQ. Which is why we are having this discussion based off of SEC filings. Private companies are not required to file with the SEC.

I believe they mean public in the publically-traded sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public (citizen controlled) sense

If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction.

> If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the SEC's jurisdiction

All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, including those issued by unlisted companies, e.g. start-ups.