True, but they enjoy special legal protection as a "platform" under section 230. They can't be sued for content they host that's posted by users.
I think, rather than building parallel infrastructure and creating separate echo chambers, this problen would be better attacked by adding a requirement for 230 protection: public platforms can only remove content if it violates their states terms of service (at the time of posting) and they need to be legally liable if they remove content arbitrarily.
If it were just a matter of twitter being a public platform, I would agree with you. However, if that were true, it would be liable for all the cp it hosts, which it isn't due to government intervention. If they want to be arbiters of content, they should be liable for everything they host.
True, but they enjoy special legal protection as a "platform" under section 230. They can't be sued for content they host that's posted by users.
I think, rather than building parallel infrastructure and creating separate echo chambers, this problen would be better attacked by adding a requirement for 230 protection: public platforms can only remove content if it violates their states terms of service (at the time of posting) and they need to be legally liable if they remove content arbitrarily.
If it were just a matter of twitter being a public platform, I would agree with you. However, if that were true, it would be liable for all the cp it hosts, which it isn't due to government intervention. If they want to be arbiters of content, they should be liable for everything they host.