We probably shouldn't (perhaps with the exception of politicians or key public figures), but we should still recognise this is a move that has net-negative effect for humanity – and a move that Twitter didn't have to make.

We can recognise things as being wrong even if they're not illegal.

It's not about forcing Twitter, it's about how Twitter wants to be framed.

As a platform, it bears no responsibility over what's published on it as long as it complies with any court orders to remove illegal content. But it cannot censor or editorialize content.

If it does, it becomes a media outlet and has responsibility over all content published on Twitter, (which doesn't scale very well).

Jack wants to have the best of both worlds. The power to censor whatever he doesn't like, with 0 responsibility over the content he doesn't care about.

As I've heard so often in the last few months, "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". If they intend to hide behind legal minimums, that is their right, but society is free to retaliate in other ways.

For instance, their (and all other social network) S230 liability protection could be tied to specific conduct, such as no arbitrary bans.

Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r...