Sure, banning users from posting a published news story is "permissive".
Any idiot with a WP site can "publish" a "news story".
Besides, if I reply to your tweet, "My child just died in a fire." with an article about how fire deaths are among the most painful ways to die, it doesn't really matter much how "published" that "news story" is, it's hateful and has no place on the Internet.
Well that’s where we (you and I, but also us collectively as a country, it seems) disagree.
I don’t care that it’s hateful, and I think it should have a place on the internet, and so long as we allow monopolies on the internet, then it needs to have a place on whatever monopoly platform there is.
Anyone who thinks they should be deciding what is “hateful and has no place on the internet” is EXACTLY who should NOT be deciding such things.
I should have said, "No place on Twitter." On the Internet? Yeah, totally in agreement.
On Twitter? Couldn't disagree more, and my one-two punch of a point was going to be that 1) it's up to Twitter to decide that, and 2) they've landed at about as free as American society will tolerate.
1) because Twitter has rights too. If we actually respect freedom of speech, we also have to respect Twitter's right to decide who to associate with and,
2) Twitter is completely tolerant to many things we'd probably consider offensive. My example probably isn't even enough to get banned on Twitter for, even though I think Twitter would be wise to avoid associating with people who get that mean in their trolling.
I think the only way to support free speech is to support Twitter's right to decide who it allows on its platform. I don't think they should let Trump on their platform, for example, but that's up to them, and they can change their minds. And now, apparently, (at least partially) up to Elon!
I don't see how anyone could seriously sustain an argument that twitter is as permissive as they could be lawfully. (Nor would I argue that they should be /that/ permissive in any case, the law in the US is a very very low bar, in part because we recognize that there are other ways to deal with bad speech than prohibiting it by law)
I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to freely associate as a form of free speech just as vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to say whatever they like (with some exceptions around protected groups).
Or maybe you mean people who don’t live in those pesky flyover states?
There are not many of us here, it wouldn't make sense for some small percentage of the US population to dictate how the entire population is forced to engage with one another on a website run by a private (as in not-government run) organization.
Twitter should be able to seek profits, and if maximal profits exist by creating a set of rules that can be violated with non-illegal activity, they should be allowed to chase those dollars.
Wouldn't it be undemocratic for the government to force Twitter to publish content it doesn't want to publish, content that would, in Twitter's estimation, harm its ability to make money?
Well, you said it. If Twitter publishes content, then it should be responsible for that content. But Twitter does not want to do that, they want to have protections like they are a public square, but also heavily alter the discourse. It's like the phone company can disconnect you if you swear on the line - it should not be possible. I would be supportive with Twitter and Facebook taking on a full editorial role, and be responsible for everything on their platforms.
And let's be honest about it. It was never about Twitter making money, for example Trump was making money for Twitter hand over fist. And NYPost publishing about a potential viral news story was not going to make Twitter less money...
It was about shifting the political discourse, which is what it's making this an undemocratic bad move. And I was wrong, it's not really a banana republic move, it's more of a communist regime style move. It was the same back then: if you said the wrong things, the censorship will come in full swing and "cancel" you. It didn't have to be the state censorship, oh no, you were censored way before that: by your boss, by the company, by the public opinion etc. Communist Romania in the 1980s and what I see here today are eerily similar: you wouldn't go to jail for your opinions, but you would be "cancelled" from any good career and public voice.