Twitter’s official position on freedom of speech: agree or disagree?

Social media companies and their god-like platform providers Google and Apple what it both ways.   They want no goverment regulation and the right to manage their platforms as private companies, BUT they want to control the content from their political motivastions.  

Just ask Parler - accused of being a hub for white-supremisist, Trump-loving, insurrectionist wing nuts Google and Apple simply REMOVED the app from their suite of store services.

This will come to a head and soon.   These companies cannot have it both ways:  they CANNOT, private tho they are, provide "open and free" content, then selectively choose which speech to regulate (aka violate the 1st amendment).

IF it comes down that it is legal for them to do that.... then all you will create is FOX-Twitter and CNN-Twitter - where the content is not open and unbiased, but tailored, spun and controled to fit a particular political paradigm. 

Bottom line - they are [private companies with a Terms Of Service agreement - those terms were violated REPETITIVELY!

In general I do NOT think they should be regulated - but have every right to control what is on their server.

So if they want to allow right-wing conspiracy theories - that is their choice - but if told they do not what that, and you post it anyway - expect something!

My thought is go by old BBS standard (Before Internet was popular, but plenty of dial-up message boards around) -

Each poster responsible for the content, NOT the OP (unless they posted it) - OP has the right, but not the obligation to delete or edit any post at their SOLE discretion,  NO obligation to grant or continue to allow access by anyone.  Failure to enforce any system rules does NOT constitute a waiver of them in every case.  OP NOT responsible to moderate or fact check any post (but may is they choose to do so),

Basic idea - you use it under their rules as long as they say you can, but use could be terminated at any time for any or no reason, you are liable for your own post, but the system owner may delete or edit it as they see fit., ex.

Total country shut downs by the Government of that country was condemned by the social media companies.

One person (Trump) and maybe some Trump campaign accounts were shut down.  Not by any government (that would be unconstitutional) but by the services themselves due to their terms of service.

Trump's social media accounts were terminated TWO MONTHS after the election because he breached the companies' conditions of service by inciting a mob to intimidate members of Congress into abandoning a democratic and constitutional process. In respect of Twitter's reaction to the Ugandan government blocking social media accounts used by government oponents, that is happening DURING an election campaign to undermine a democraticy just as Trump's supporters undermined democracy. There is no inconsistency.

Should the government shut down speech or try to control speech? Definitely not. That's why it's just as wrong for the President of Uganda to shut down the Internet as it is for the President of the United States to try to force social media platforms to repeat his words for him out to America and the world. 

To be clear, it is Trump who is violating the First Amendment. It is NOT Twitter violating Trump's First Amendment rights. Trump is the government trying to control speech. Twitter isn't the government. 

This isn't new. Never has any private citizen or group of citizens, like Twitter's shareholders, been required by the government, whether by law or by order of the President of the United States, to publish everything everyone says. Newspapers have never been legally required to publish every single letter to the editor, for example. Why not? Because that would violate the First Amendment rights of the newspapers' owners, just like abusing the power of his office to try and force social media platforms to publish his words is Trump infringing on the First Amendment rights of those social media companies' owners, their shareholders.

Also, let's be honest. Trump is the President of the United States. He has the White House. He has the Oval Office. He has the Briefing Room. He has the White House press corps. Via the FCC, which is under his authority and control, he has a button he can press at will to preempt every broadcast network's to go on live TV personally and instantly bring himself and his speech into living rooms across America. He has a megaphone that speaks out loudly and reaches nearly everyone in the entire world as his disposal to use whenever he wants to say whatever he wants. 

So the President is not being silenced. The President is hiding. The President is using the free-speech expression of the owners of Twitter, Facebook, et al. to not cow to repeating his words, his lies and incitements of violent insurrection, for him out to the world as a way to falsely blame them for violating the rights he's truly trying to violate of theirs and thus throw up a giant smoke screen to hide from questions and from having to answer for what he's done, his lies, his crimes. 

Twitters stock value is off almost 4 billion.  Facebook is off almost 45 billion.  Stockholders see what's coming.

You are only strong on the internet if you have almost everyone using your service.