The ‘‘it is a private business, it can do what it wants, argument’’ is probably the true definition of a ‘‘slippery slope’’. Businesses have a lot of power, allowing them to do whatever they want because they are privately owned is a one-way ticket to human rights abuses.
It’s honestly quite surprising how many people (mainly Americans) think “It’s only censorship when the government do it.”
‘‘specifically, every government that isn’t the U.S Government’’
It’s not protected by the First Amendment unless it’s government action. Private parties can censor whatever they want. In the US.
Exactly, that’s why Twitter bans aren’t a violation of the First Amendment. Twitter is an independent platform non-affiliated with the government; if they want you gone you get gone. It ain’t illegal for a business to ban your ass.
well something beeing legal doesn´t mean it´s good. Neither does something beeing illegal mean it´s bad. Moral != law.
Never gave my opinion one way or the other, just pointing out that many Americans don’t actually understand the First Amendment. You’ll always see people saying that their Twitter ban is a violation of their First Amendment rights, but that’s just not how it works.
Social media is a de facto public forum.
But not a de jure public forum.
Twitter is not the government, not affiliated with the government, not hired by the government. They’re a private corporation who reserves their right to refuse service to anybody, so long as their reasons are legitimate and not based on discrimination (and no, being banned for expressing your own discriminatory opinions, promoting violence, or spreading misinformation is NOT the same as Twitter itself discriminating against you). No different than a store tossing your ass out if you cause trouble. Companies ≠ government.