Okay, well that's an answer. It is quite a libertarian answer, but that doesn't make it morally flawed, although not what I expected.
The point is, just about every single online service out there already does some form of filtering. Should they
all be prevented from doing so? And if not, why not?
Or to ask it a different way - why should Twitter be treated differently than the rest, and be compelled to not filter or moderate as they see fit? What makes them special in that regard that they can't be granted the same authority over their own platform as others are?
I'm opposed to censorship of what is called fake news or disinformation.
All that other moderation shit is probably fine, maybe even a good idea. I'm a little leery about it still, but since it is a private platform I have to agree it's not really my concern.
But to re-iterate my actual concern, it is the decision that something is fake news and then censoring a news site. In my opinion that is way out of line. Twitter has the power to make shit disappear. Sure that sounds terrific when its the NY Post and the story seems like horseshit, but how many political reversals before you regret your apathy?
I can tell you how many, 1.
So if you can think past next Thursday, you might sense a threat lurking in the background of corporate censorship.
