Please, if you disagree, reply with why. Besides ad-hominem attacking the person, and if this particular incident is a good example (it is not), explain why fb/twit/etc deserve dual protections?
> (too) publicly played favorites lately.
My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that makes the world a worse place to live.
Places like Gab or Voat have their view of what is acceptable, and I disagree and condemn them for it. Places like HN have a code with which I largely agree, and I commend them for it.
I neither expect, nor desire, companies like to twitter to provide "freedom of speech." Not with the internet and web we currently have, whose technical design overwhelmingly favors bad actors.
And who is to decide what makes the world a worse place?