My key issue here is consistency. If others had to abide Twitter rules, I never liked that politicians, incl Trump, didn’t.

Distinctly, I also feel that monopolistic companies (eg, public square ones — see classic case of malls) might need to be regulated like public utilities.
This is a good example of why consistency is important and also so difficult. Will Twitter now delete any other accounts violating its rules?

To be clear, directly fomenting violence (and insurrection) is a special kind of speech.
This is also surely true. Again: consistency is key issue for me.
For completeness, here is Twitter’s explanation of the public interest exception for politicians (though I do understand the rationale).
For subtle and fearless and consistent thinking about the issue of whether and why politicians should have their accounts suspended from public-square-type platforms (and for much other wise commentary about myriad subjects) check out @conor64
Another set of good points.
A senior member of the @ACLU weighs in.
And now here is @navalny, a man I admire risking his life for free elections, making two arguments similar to these: 1) consistency in banning is important, and 2) do we really want corporations in charge of the public square. These are not easy issues.
One essence in this complex situation is that Twitter etc are functioning as quasi-monopolies over the public square.

Let me add this classic case to this thread for those unfamiliar: SCOTUS ruled a private mall could not block leaflet distribution.
This is also a nice summary of the situation, via @KAnthonyAppiah
You can follow @NAChristakis.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.