If one disagrees with liberal establishment rhetoric on gender issues, you also get banned very quickly. There are a bunch of these consensus political issues that are off limits for debate.
Instead this is how I’d moderate twitter, when a court orders a tweet to be banned or a judge rules that a user should be banned that is when the moderation team would step in.
I’d also make it easier for people to filter content themselves. So if there’s POVs they don’t want to ever see they don’t have to see it.
Essentially this would reverse 99% of the mod teams decisions.
Take the case of Megan Murphy, a woman who is in a lawsuit against Twitter. Rules were added to Twitter that were used as a justification for her ban retroactively:
The speech is made in public and should be adjudicated in public. Today’s Twitter hides its moderation policies and decisions. Even though they are a private company (albeit publicly traded and the effective public square), this is wrong.
The example that people use, would be any speech that legal within the US.
If it is illegal, then most anti-censorship advocates are still fine with it being banned. But generally speaking, the best case scenario for them would be all legal speech in the US.
As a quick example, [1] lists some categories of tweets which they will delete. Twitter seems to have overreached with category 2:
> Claims that specific groups or people (or other demographically-identifiable identity) are more or less prone to be infected or to develop adverse symptoms on the basis of their membership in that group;
This is nonsense. Your risk increases with your age. Your risk increases with your BMI. Men are at higher risk than women. Those working in customer-facing roles are at higher risk than those who can work from home. Each of those statements are apparently banned on twitter.
[1]: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misin...
How many people were banned or blocked by Twitter for COVID misinformation, when it turned out that those spreading “misinformation” were actually the CDC, WHO, and government institutions, and when said institutions blatantly lied to the public about masking, vaccines, lab leak theory, and lockdowns, Twitter did absolutely nothing, except punish the people who criticized said institutions.
Just look at Facebook. It's widely seen as "boomer garbage" that's only used as a least-common-denominator resort for communication by the target group these days, and conspiracy crap groups and peddlers of propaganda are a huge part of the reason.
Platforms and societies that fail to maintain some basic social order all eventually disintegrate into chaos.
Like is this a we need a speech dictator even people I disagree with is better than chaos point of view?
Or is this a my point of view should be enforced on everyone and platforms should not be allowed to publish things I disagree with point of view?
If Trump was on the mod team of a platform, I simply wouldn't use that platform.
No one needs to use Twitter. Most people's life wouldn't change the slightest bit if Twitter disappeared tomorrow. There's no serious argument that the platform has a monopoly on anything.
A platform that makes money and has free speech would be wonderful. Maybe he can steal Rogan from Spotify too.