Read on Twitter
All big tech companies need to give far better explanations than they have about why they are removing certain accounts. Yes, they own the space. Yes, they have terms of service. Yes, they follow their policies. But who decides? When? How? 1/n
Why was Jan 6 the trigger? Why the lack of clarity about how decisions were made? Why have other leaders in other countries making similar remarks not faced the same fate? 2/n
Those rejoicing the disappearance of some of the handles need to ask themselves if the leaders they agree with, were removed from these platforms. 3/n
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are private spaces that create the illusion of being public spaces. That is the lesson here. Sure, as @MargieOrford pointed out today, a bar-owner has the right to kick out a rowdy customer. 4/n
And yes, there are laws against inciting violence, and that depends on who's doing the incitement - the drunk at the pub or someone with a mass following. @SusanBenesch's dangerous speech project is about that. 5/n
But on what basis do these companies arrive at these conclusions? I also agree that if Trump had his way and 230 were removed, then he'd have been off twitter much earlier. SM platforms are effectively behaving as editors/publishers. 6/n
And they have the right to 'take away' the microphone. We were wrong in assuming that private spaces are public spaces. But if you run a private space and create the illusion it is for public, there needs to be some public accountability. As @davidakaye argues in his book 7/n
it requires coordinated, multistakeholder approach, in understanding the meaning of free speech, the limits that may be reasonable (and I appreciate, 'reasonable' is a debatable term), and applied consistently and without discrimination. 8/n
That's an impossible task for a private company, run by brilliant technologists and advised by risk-averse lawyers. The battle for free speech will remain ongoing. What SM companies are doing seems like censorship, but only on their medium. All editors have such rights. 9/n
I can't demand that a newspaper must publish me. But if I am prevented from ever publishing by the state, or the law, then that's censorship. That said, SM companies need to earn the trust they crave for. At the moment, they have little. 10/n
Disclosure: I had my own kerfuffle with twitter in December, which has nothing to do with what I've said here. It is the 'black box' - how the companies apply the policies they say they have - that's at issue. 11/11
