notherthrowaway

==“[A] private company enforcing their TOS" is a disingenuous characterization of the issue. A de-facto public communication platform -- the "consumer product" in your 'technicalities' world view -- is obstructing disemination of expression.==

It is obstructing the dissemination of things that break its TOS. Should people be allowed to dox others on Twitter? People get banned for calls for violence pretty frequently.

What makes Twitter a “de-facto communication platform”? Is tiktok? Skype? Instagram? Twitter isn’t a public square, but the internet is, and this story is readily available on the internet.

==People gleefully discuss Sweden and almost openly hope that their lockdown-free plan fails.==

What I see is the opposite, lots of people who want to copy Sweden’s plan regardless of the toll it took on human life. Others want to put mask orders in place to protect more people.

Meanwhile, we have unmarked federal agents roaming cities, a President who fires Inspector Generals and ignores subpoenas without punishment, and a sitting Senator calling for “no quarter” for protestors. Those are all pretty authoritarian moves and they come straight from the top. If you think “everyday citizens” are the authoritarian threat, your risk analysis might be off.

Take a look at the national defense budget or each city’s police budget if you think collective safety is below individual freedoms. We clearly put more resources towards collective safety than individual freedoms.

I’m not sure I follow. Can you provide examples of policy decisions that are individual and not collective?

Also, what “culture” are you referring to?

Because nobody should be above the rules they agree to before using. You are arguing for political immunity based on holding a job that is neither elected nor approved by elected officials. That is authoritarian, whether or not you find it “gross”.

Your desires to insult those who disagree with you and fast forward to some “corporate sovereignty” fantasy aren’t relevant to the discussion of whether this action broke the terms Twitter has laid out.

==if we want to go that way we have to argue in favor of corporate sovereignty given the power these companies have.==

Or, we just allow them to manage their users, user agreements, and platform like we do other businesses. Your argument is to take that power away from companies and give it to government.

Twitter has a terms of service that you must agree to before using. These aren’t the same thing.

I figured the rules applied to everyone when they sign the TOS.

Should the press secretary’s Twitter account get special treatment?

==And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.==

More than one thing can be dangerous to our society, like if these platforms were used to spread falsehoods and misinformation unchecked.

We have made murder illegal and there is a “murder for hire” black market. How does that refute my point?

== People just tend to behave better when they're dealing with a real human being that they've met instead of a screen name in Slack that they argue with every day.==

I’ve seen this work with unruly customers, too.

You could use the $90 million to diversify your real estate assets or pay down your debt.