I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.
And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
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.
"When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
The Republicans that were strongly grounded in either policy positions and/or truth have all been vilified (Comey, Mueller, Amash, Flake, McCain, G Conway, Bush, Romney, etc). Even guys like Bolton, who holds extreme conservative opinions on how to run government, cannot succeed in the party because he doesn't toe the line on fealty to Trump / 'flat-earth'.
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."
Should all grocery stores in the country be allowed to do this?
If so, how do I eat?
They could just look at the credit card number, and observe that 7305 matches a blacklist.
They could use facial recognition in the checkout to check against a database and deny you service that way.
And so on, and so forth. There is no need to be hated by ordinary folks, just that the upper management/media doesn't like you.
What is the solution to this? Never adopting any objectionable views?
I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.
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.
Also, I remember when Twitter was getting really big one of their prominent founders (May have been jack but I can’t remember) did an interview in which they positioned themselves that social media platforms should use “constitutional logic” (for those not in the states, that’s the USA constitution) when regulating speech in their platform l, which, for better or worse, depending on context and things, “kill all white men” would pass the fee speech test.
Interestingly enough I actually can’t find anything that supports the example you’re referring to here. On the other hand I’ve seen tons and tons of sexist, misogynistic, white supremacist tweets that are super prominent on the platform.