No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see.
Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.
>Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor.
Translates roughly as:
>I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering.
In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.
The original statement I replied to — which was also the first time "silenced" was used in this thread — was:
> Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
In reply, I asked "What would you call it?".
In any case, do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?
Yes, I think we do, if it’s in exchange for their currently privileged position.
Currently, they operate with the privileges of a common carrier, and none of the responsibilities.
They shouldn’t have the privilege of being shielded from responsibility for what they publish on behalf of others, while also claiming that doing so represents their own protected speech.
If they want to editorialize, they can be treated like any other publisher, and be held responsible for what they publish — including disinformation, libel, harassment, et al.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
> A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.
They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the CDA, but none of the responsibilities.
Refer to the “telecommunications” section of the Wikipedia page you’ve cited, where this specific topic is covered, along with additional references for further details.
Being a "Interactive computer service" != being a "common carrier". Pointing to Section 230 as an example of "common carrier" statues is massively misunderstanding the "ISPs as common carriers" debate.
Social media can definitely be used to silence people, but I don't think that's mostly what's happening (for the most part) wrt big tech banning certain controversial content on their platforms.
Why is a “social media” company headed by the most popular “conservative” in America failing?
Why can’t FoxNews create its own social media company?
"If they don't like it, why can't they just create their own internet that we will not be able to access?"
https://time.com/6209392/truth-social-financial-problems-tru...
Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He couldn’t fund the equivalent of Cloudflare if he desires? He couldn’t find enough like minded investors?
In any case they are simply mastodon forks, are they not? I can't see why it would require massive funding. I don't think the failure of truth social speaks to the failure of "splinter" forums at large.
What word should we use to describe the viewpoint-based prohibition of someone’s speech?
Alternatively, conservatives are all about the free market. Let them create a platform where their views can be heard.
Common carriers are private companies required to guarantee non-discriminatory access to the public.
They do this in exchange for a shield from liability for what the public says/does/transfers via their service.
The legal framework for this dates back to English common law, and applies to telephone companies, airlines, freight carriers, taxi companies, and just about any other company that provides public services under the privilege of a government-granted shield from liability.
The only companies of this type that this doesn’t apply to are ”interactive computer service” providers, because they were granted a special privilege cut out in the Communication Decency Act of 1996, while we asked for nothing in return [1].
That’s the issue, here.
If the NRA wants to launch an “interactive computer service” that publishes user content, then yes, I think they should be forced to either accept liability for what they publish, or accept they they must serve the public without viewpoint discrimination.
If RedState wants to host a comment section, then I think the same rule should apply to them, too.
ISPs, too. This is the fundamental concept on which all arguments for net neutrality rest.
[1] Not entirely true; the liability shield of the Communications Decency Act was intended to counterbalance the criminalization of user transmission of “obscene or indecent” material on the internet.
The indecency clauses were struck down by the courts, leaving the privileges and none of the responsibilities.
The whole law was a broken, idiotic idea and should have been scrapped entirely.
(1) That the invented classification was a mistake, and should be rectified, and
(2) How that invented classification — and the privileges it granted — was made in trade for something we never received (and never should have asked for): criminalization of “obscene or indecent” material on the internet.
I'm not sure whose arguments you believe you're rebutting, but they're not mine.