But backchannels can certainly be helpful. Twitter is the backchannel for customer service for many companies. But let's take HN as another case.
How many times has HN been used as an informal mechanism to get Google to fix something? There are few formal methods to contact Google customer support, so having an informal method (HN) has been quite helpful.
Is this an optimal method? Certainly not, but the existence of an informal communication method to request a review of a tweet is not an issue.
Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives.
A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business.
Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor.
Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence.
That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals.
It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?
It is well-known that Hannity among many others are in direct communication with republicans and directly coordinate their messages. Nobody bats an eye because nobody is surprised that Fox/Murdoch are conservative media despite an explicit mission to be "fair and balanced" news. Yet somehow reading emails from Democrats makes Twitter a complete traitor to their mission.
Trying to say censorship is fine as long as the current party in power also gets it like the last guy isn’t a persuasive argument.
You can’t abuse power you don’t have. We stopped letting monarchs control things via backroom dealings with their elite friends back in the 1700s for a good reason.
Creating a system with zero transparency that’s at the whims of whoever currently has power and influence is not a healthy way to build a system of governance.
Having a limited set of publicly defined powers + transparency is the only way to prevent abuse and biases. Neither an anarchist free-for-all nor a system directly controlled by elites and influence groups. Bias and power will always exist, all you can do is create systems that reduce those inherent risks in the most optimal way possible.