I've been genuinely surprised how many people in infosec think [Twitter|Amazon|Apple|Google] should in some way be prevented from blocking Trump/Parler.

I strongly disagree & this is a hill I will die on.

I got a lot of DMs about this last night so I think a thread is needed.

First - part of the problem is that the public is being tricked into thinking there is something special about either which gives them an intrinsic right to have $things. I reject that idea. I kind of accept Trump got a pass as POTUS but even that is a sketchy argument.

If we start with the idea that "Tech Giants" should be prevented from denying service to people who violate the Terms of Service, we need to ask who will enforce that? The only option is the government. Think about that.

It is literally calling for the government to have the ability to say what is and what isn't allowed on public discussion channels.

That is fascism, censorship, chilling effects etc. That's the thing you are all saying Twitter (etc) are guilty of.

It really is.

The next problem is the idea that Parler(etc) have the right to a platform simply because they've convinced you that it is down to equality.

It isn't. We don't want racists in society, so we shouldn't be saying they have the right to a platform to spread their evil cancer.

But they don't. No company should be forced to allow it. We would *never* consider this if it was a paedo chat app, so the reality is if you are considering it, you think racists should have some right to voice their views.

I 100% reject this.

The argument that this "silences" people is also clearly incorrect. It does change their audience but that is the inevitable consequence of their choices. Actions have consequences and they need to accept that.

But they aren't silenced.

Not being able to tweet doesn't prevent them using countless other mediums. If the POTUS calls a presser, it will be covered by the entire world's media. And put on Twitter. 49 out of 50 people in the world don't even use Twitter. Pressers are *more* important but we seem to

have overlooked the current POTUS's absolute farce here - rather than call him to account over turning off the legitimate way to communicate, we cry he can't tweet crap at random. No one has been "silenced" here.

There is a side argument which doesn't make sense - its that banning will amplify their voice. That's a direct counter-argument to the silencing but I've seen both made by the same person several times.

The reality is we shouldn't care. It strangles their access to new recruits

and we know it is effective for lots of other hate-groups (terrorists, paedos and all the other horsemen of the cyber-apocalypse).

If banning them makes them more effective, we should encourage terrorist groups etc. We don't. We shouldn't. Banning theme works for us, not them.

What intrigues me about security people making this argument is that, in Infosec, we are constantly asking hosting providers to take down content we don't want them to carry. Often this relies entirely on it being a TOS violation. Do we really want that to stop? Of course not.

In #CyberSecurity, we write policies which say what people are/aren't allowed to do and we enforce it.

It amazes me that security people are now saying Twitter(etc) shouldn't enforce their policies because some powerful white people are pretty butthurt about this.

As a check - please let me know how I can post inappropriate content on your organisations' internal comms pages. Your own logic seems to be that preventing me from doing that means you are a fascist.

Clearly, this isn't the case, so why do you think Twitter (etc) should be different?

One argument seems to be that Twitter(etc) are so big the rules should be different. They are big but this isn't really a valid argument because they *still* don't have the right to spread hate.

The reality is that the internet is full of ways they can continue to spread hatred, albeit to a smaller audience. But that is still the consequence of their hate-driven actions. If they don't want that consequence, then they follow the rules of the platforms they want to be on.

The tl;dr is that banning people from private platforms is the opposite of fascism (especially when the platform bans a President). If you don't like the TOS, use something else.