> Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma.

There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age".

> And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.

Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.

Should my grocery store be allowed to kick me out because they don't like my political views?

Should all grocery stores in the country be allowed to do this?

If so, how do I eat?

>Do you complain about balance issues for places like say, Voat as well?

As well? I don't complain about them at all. Pointing out that it exists when people deny it is not complaining.

>I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

Well I see two obvious differences that could cause that. The first simply being size. Facebook, google, twitter, reddit, etc are all, as organizations, far-left. And they all use their platforms to silence things they disapprove of, and push their politics. Whatever sites do the same from a far-right perspective are tiny. So, obviously there would be far more complaining from the far larger group of people who use the biggest sites on the web.

Second, all the supposed "far right" websites I see mentioned don't appear to be far right at all, and don't appear to do much or any moderating. They are "far right" because people with left wing views choose not to participate, not because they get banned. There's a big difference between being removed from a platform for having an unapproved view, vs being allowed to post your unapproved view and then people tell you it is wrong.

Yeah nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore. Still, I'd hardly say that makes the people you mention stop being Republicans, much less conservatives. If the party leadership traitorously turns against them, then it's the party that stops being Republican. Just like (ever since Bill Clinton) the Democratic leadership has deserted what the party used to be about, allowing millions of voters to be seduced to the other side (and back again, for that matter!) without even so much as a platform. All you need is a good disinformation campaign. Good times. Don't even get me started -- disillusioned Democrat here. I'm kind of "neither" at this point, but I'm old enough to remember a time when as a Democrat I could at least respect actual Republicans, i.e. actual conservatives, who "had ideas about stuff and shit," and had reached a certain conclusion. Trump is a fake Republican, and a temporary aberration that will soon go away or perhaps wreck the country permanently, making it all irrelevant!

EDIT: Actually no, I think I would dial back the "temporary aberration" bit as being too glibly optimistic. Because things seem to trend toward entropy, and bringing back a structure is a lot harder than letting a structure go to shit. i.e. what I said at the outset still remains true even after Trump, namely, "nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore."

So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.

I believe the context I replied to was “fake ads by Trump supporters” when the reality is no “side” has a monopoly on nonsense.

>Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned?

I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.)

This is the balance that I referred to.

Let's keep this civil.

You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur.

Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it.

Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.)

Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question.

EDIT:

So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense.

So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.