> They are shown out of a private establishment that can choose who it serves
We can all imagine what Twitter would be like if created by a church group. Certain, virtuous tweets would be promoted, and tweets containing sinful thoughts would be banned.
This system would be fine, but not really any better (or different) than a phpbb system maintained by that same group. It would be a walled garden with very clear limits to the kind of speech and expression it wished to foster.
Twitter can be this too, but by doing so it lowers itself to the status of simply a large phpbb board with a righteous troupe of moderators keeping order.
Some people (such as yourself) seem to prefer this, and seem not to tolerate certain kinds of views being expressed, even when users are not forced to consume those views.
The drive to create a heavily censored/curated environment is exactly the opposite of the drive to create a platform.
Viewed as a worldwide platform, Twitter would have to maintain a ridiculous ratio of censors to users in order to provide adequate levels of totalitarian censorship of unapproved ideas.
If Twitter's massive censorship bureaucracy is causing it to flounder and face a loss of credibility with investors, it ought to correct for this rapidly by adopting a firm no-censorship stance.
Coca-Cola could easily ask to advertise only to people who have not viewed (for whatever reason) a white-supremacist tweet in the last 30 days.
We can all imagine what Twitter would be like if created by a church group. Certain, virtuous tweets would be promoted, and tweets containing sinful thoughts would be banned.
This system would be fine, but not really any better (or different) than a phpbb system maintained by that same group. It would be a walled garden with very clear limits to the kind of speech and expression it wished to foster.
Twitter can be this too, but by doing so it lowers itself to the status of simply a large phpbb board with a righteous troupe of moderators keeping order.
Some people (such as yourself) seem to prefer this, and seem not to tolerate certain kinds of views being expressed, even when users are not forced to consume those views.
The drive to create a heavily censored/curated environment is exactly the opposite of the drive to create a platform.
Viewed as a worldwide platform, Twitter would have to maintain a ridiculous ratio of censors to users in order to provide adequate levels of totalitarian censorship of unapproved ideas.
If Twitter's massive censorship bureaucracy is causing it to flounder and face a loss of credibility with investors, it ought to correct for this rapidly by adopting a firm no-censorship stance.
Coca-Cola could easily ask to advertise only to people who have not viewed (for whatever reason) a white-supremacist tweet in the last 30 days.