Ostensibly Twitter has to make money, and most companies do not want their ads to be seen next to blatant antisemitic messages.

In the crazy clown world in which we live, Twitter could theoretically kick off all the advertisers and become Elon Musk's self-promotion platform (which it already is), but I doubt the other investors would go along with this.

Or just not show ads on those pages.

If you don't ban anyone, pretty soon the people who advertisers like leave the platform and you're left with free speech purists, hatemongers, and not too much else. Those people don't bring $$.

So in this case, free speech and the free market are at odds.

Legal according to who? Different countries have different laws. As we see with India and Signal this week.

Twitter already hides tweets in specific countries based on local laws.

Spam city coming right at ya

for the same reason you don't see laundry detergent ads on pornhub. most advertisers don't want their ads next to certain kinds of content. Whether for their own moral objections or fear of negative customer reaction they won't pay for ad space near it. As advertising pays the bills for this service you have to only host content that advertiser are willing to allow their ads near. It not about whats legal its about whats practical and profitable.

>>>for the same reason you don't see laundry detergent ads on pornhub. most advertisers don't want their ads next to certain kinds of content.

Hmmm, if I had a laundry detergent company I'd totally support tailored ads for Pornhub. "Forgot to take your dress off before the bukkake scene? Don't worry! DirtBlaster Detergent can handle even the crustiest of stains!"

You've actually got me thinking about the viability of this across a spectrum of common consumer products.....