| Pajderman said: You are under the assumption that whoever set the rules on what information are allowed always work for the general public's best interest. That is not always the case. We have a modern example in the information Russia gives its people regarding the war in Ukraine. |
Twitter is not a government agency, does not have a monopoly on media, and is not doing anything out of the ordinary to moderate their social media platform at scale. Putting them in the same conversation as Russian state media is an enormous reach.
| Pajderman said: My understanding of democracy is that free speech is one of the most fundamental cornerstones so I sort of agree that it is under attack, but not from the point of view you have. |
You don't agree that misinformation is threatening the integrity of our democratic systems? That blatant lies about election fraud and theft cause people to no longer believe in and reject the electoral process?
And what about Twitter's freedom to moderate and control their own platform? Should the government force them to host content they don't want to that is against their Terms of Service? Freedom of speech does not entitle you to a megaphone on whatever private platform you want. Being banned from a private platform for violating its ToS is not a violation of free speech.
