Resolved that Twitter can legally boot you for any reason, other than membership in a protected class

[DSeid]

@DMC

I for the life of me can’t figure out the actual question they want answered.

Well the two separate thread openers both stated the questions were these.

@DSeid

if there is:

1. a public interest in controlling disinformation and hate speech
2. a public interest in having the square contain a wide diversity of opinions and ideas
3. a need to have some system that balances those dynamics such that a few individuals alone do not have excess effective and arbitrary control over what is contained in each bucket, lest they at some point do the censorship work of the autocrats for them in return for opportunities to make more profit.

Sorry if what was written is too obtuse for you. I do try my best.

But this is your OP. And so far as your proposition? Twitter alone? No.

Can Twitter legally boot anyone off for any or no reason? Yes. If they, and the several other platforms that currently dominate the social media platform space, with no statement or reason given, decided in the face of a Trump win, to try to win governmental favor by slowly kicking off those posting that wearing masks was good, and to allow those who said mask wearing was bad for your health, causing low oxygen and high CO2 and rebreathing of your own germs … that would be legal. They can currently selectively allow whatever disinformation they want and disallow whatever factual information they want. To fawn for favor if they want.

Those who do not see these few CEOs as having control of overwhelmingly dominant market share would have no problem with that. The marketplace would fix it.

Those who do have a problem with it do not see it as a 1A issue, other than awareness of how 1A assures the companies of their rights as corporate persons.

Having access to the platform is not giving an audience. If I had a Twitter feed my audience might be a friend or so and maybe my kids. My wife would not follow me I suspect… she hears me bloviate in real life enough!

I get the argument that ease of entry of any tiny player into the platform marketplace currently so dominated by a few behemoths controlled by a few individuals means that almost any voice has a place it could be heard, theoretically. And that the Trump in particular, as a specific case, has many other ways too many other to be heard, and has long been a major source of harmful disinformation.

Let me ask you this though, as a hypothetical …

Is there a degree of market dominance by one to several companies acting in concert with each other, that would concern you? Or would it be fine so long as they do not engage in anticompetitive behaviors at any level of market dominance with its power used to any end, inclusive of fawning for favor from those with political power inclusive of wannabe autocrats?

Do the public interests I listed exist in your take?