It's a balancing act between individual and social rights (individual in this case being twitter), but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had.
When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole.
I think a bazaar or carnival is a better metaphor, since a town hall is a brick and mortar thing that lasts into posterity, whereas a social network is more temporary
> When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole.
Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? There's nothing permanent about the current social networks that are popular right now
And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.
Town got pulled in when I pointed out that rights over speech wrt to these places still exist even though someone can move to a different town (to presumably gain access to a different town hall).
Towns are municipalities, twitter is a private company. The more I look at this metaphor, the less it makes sense
Again, the biggest issue here is the public misconception that Twitter (or any of the internet) is a benevolent platform. Legislation cannot change that.
Nobody is above the law, not the meek nor the mighty.
aka, we already have precedence for this sort of thing.