As much as I don't like the drama queenism of this guy, he's not wrong.
Have you ever worked at a company where there's a strict code of behavior, but the CEO is a rich loud-mouthed douchebag and nobody can shut him up because they'd get fired?
I have. Kind of unfair, isn't it?
Unfair would be having a well documented code of conduct on a platform who's terms apply for everybody except the rich, and the rich are allowed to say whatever they want on this platform.
Twitter, Facebook and others have neither legal nor moral obligation to host Trump, or anybody else.
I completely agree with this. So let's strip them of their section 230 rights[0] and let them have full control of their platform, instead of their bad faith application of censorship to political ideologies they disagree with. Why, for example, did Twitter and Facebook ban The Wall Street Journal's reporting on Hunter Biden's emails? Or why do they consistently block and remove Project Veritas reporting? This is compared to the dubious Steele dossier which is freely discussed.
Somehow the policies of these companies end up hurting right-wing/conservative media outlets more than left-wing media outlets.
Except Taliban never had terrible behavior on social media
Same scenario when a store has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. Or a high end restaurant requires people to wear a suit coat and tie.
Totally and legally acceptable.
Mobile apps may be easier to take down, but then they make the transition the open web.
Hell, even Taliban recruiting online is now officially no different than the JDF or the USMC recruiting online. Just another government recruiting for their army.
As long as they aren't preaching/encouraging violence (besides recruiting for their military), or preaching hatred, then they are within the terms of service.
There's an argument that corporations should not be forced to host content they don't agree with, but perhaps this just means that the social media landscape should be taken away from corporations and become something like a public good.
The moment big tech started curating what is available, they simultaneously opened a can of worms on censorship, and they also should've lost the safe harbor allowances.
We can't have unpopular opinions completely silenced if we are meant to have constructive discourse. Of course, if the objective is to build siloed echo chambers whose only interaction is borderline fanatic ripping at each other's throats, then the current trajectory is 100% on course.
Understanding and constructive discussion can only arise in an environment where we try to understand the opposition, instead of trying to silence them or find reasons to vilify them.
But people aren't trying to understand each other, nor are they trying to have constructive discussions. The very nature of the platforms makes that really, really hard, and it just doesn't happen.
Instead, the platforms are used to whip up mobs and dog-whistle followers, and that's a "Bad Thing^{(tm)}".
Consider the paradox of tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Giving intolerant people a platform is a recipe for bad things to happen.