Recently there have been many accounts getting banned for being critical of US foreign policy in Ukraine conflict, disagreeing with western media propaganda around specific events. Also many got banned for posting "conspiracy theories" around COVID that eventually became conventional wisdom like its origin in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

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.

Don’t have one. Let’s go with Trump or Alex Jones. People who say a lot of things people don’t like but aren’t illegal or their illegality hasn’t been proven in court yet.

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.

The interesting thing about Twitter is that people are banned arbitrarily and politically.

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:

https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/meghan-murphy-twitter/

I’d make them publish their content moderation policies, and have all decisions documented and filtered through those public rules.

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.

> What’s a concrete example of speech

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.

I'm not the OP but Twitter has at various times suppressed information about covid and covid vaccines. They are well intentioned but they occasionally overreach.

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...

COVID was the biggest one for me.

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.

Not OP but Elon has stated explicitly that all speech legal in the USA, so if I had the choice it would include parties left, right, and center: Occupy Wall Street, the AntiMedia project, Global Revolution Live, President Trump, Milo Yiannopoulus (sp?) Alex Jones, Robert Stacy McCain, Laura Loomer.