Probably because his ideas and opinions are actively censored. It's no secret that social media has a heavy bias.

both sides think "social media" is biased against them; I honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes

They're biased against something, because they delete legal content.

Who cares that it’s legal though? You’re on their property, committed to abiding by their terms of service even.

If you’re hosting a garden party and one of the guests has become disruptive to everyone else, are you not allowed to demand they cease their behavior or leave your property just because their angry ranting is not illegal speech?

You’re totally within your right to say “I’m out, this party sucks anyway, you guys don’t want to have honest debate” but it’s a little absurd to force the property owner to allow you to stick around when you are no longer welcome.

Actually, Florida doesn't own the property of the private citizens whether its the network fiber, routers, or buildings which contain these items. If you can't justify such a capricious law then maybe your intention is malicious?

This is a first amendment violation. It should be obvious how the state differs from corporate entities or persons.

If you don't like it, just build your own state. smh.

Do you feel the same way about telephones? How about electricity? Is it out of the realm of possibility that a conscientious electrical supplier might not want to power a racist's computer?

Electricity is analogous to the the road that you traveled on to the way to the party.

> Is it out of the realm of possibility that a conscientious electrical supplier might not want to power a racist's computer?

Isn’t this the case that these same people are making for why ISPs should NOT be neutral, even though they’re much more like electricity and roads than private garden parties?

And both Ukraine and Russia say they are being attacked.

I think there is real bias (and in the West it's more biased against conservatives and some minority groups while it's different elsewhere, depends mostly on the dominant ideology) and there's faux discrimination to get victim points to trade in for control.

it aligns with my values on free speech and I think social media platforms should be common carriers and be forced to allow all free speech (aside from fire in a crowded theater)

Hard to believe people who have actually thought about the consequences of demoderation could possibly support it. It would instantly be the end of all forums. Moderation isn't always perfect, but it is infinitely better than a free for all.

The alternative to centralized moderation is voluntary peer-to-peer communication, not a firehose.

Something like secushare would take the place of forums I assume: https://secushare.org/society

Enjoy the deluge of spam

As a post-social media accelerationalist, the utter chaos that would result in social media platforms' inability to combat spam would devolve into the inability to exist at all and should be welcomed. Social media's negative externality is our individual mental health. One of the greatest things we could do for our mental health would be a complete and utter implosion of uncensorable social media. It cannot come soon enough.

I didn't read this whole thing but I agree it would be pretty funny if social media was legally forced to host spam

I mostly hate social media. But we'd also lose useful things. Such as the discussion board we're currently on. Or the treasure trove of educational and funny content on YouTube. Watching puppy videos is amazing for my mental health. It would be a shame for it to be drowned in spam.

It would honestly be better for me if social media categorically ceased to exist. Before anyone responds with, "You could choose not to participate," what I mean is that if they ceased to exist it would increase the supply of the attention and time of others. When I'm competing in time and attention for others with the likes FB/IG/TT I'm simply at the loosing end. I don't have a team of PhDs whose goal it is to increase people's engagement with me - they do. If I have to compete at all, I'd much rather compete with other people - not against professionals.

And getting banned because you repeatedly say that the election is fraud and urge your supporters to storm the capitol (and getting one such person killed) isn't the equivalent of fire in a crowded theater?

Moderation is hard. They get it right 99% of the time.