Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

I think it's even more concerning than that.

Threatening to shut down private companies -- not for limiting speech, not for refusing to distribute speech -- but for exercising their own right to free speech alongside the free speech of others (in this case the president).

There is no right to unchallenged or un-responded-to speech, regardless of how you interpret the right to free speech.

Attaching a disclaimer to the speech of another though is not straightforward. Will they get into the business of fact checking everyone over certain number of followers? Will they do it impartially world-wide? How can they even be impartial world wide given the different contradictory points of view, valid from both sides? Cyprus? What’s the take there?

as long as they are not using limited public goods (e.g. part of the EM spectrum to broadcast), then from my perspective they can do anything they want assuming it doesn't break another law.

now if they want to use limited public goods, well then there's a role for the FCC or something like it...

Twitter is the place where the entire media and political classes hang out. They're all addicted to it. These people's opinions shape real-world politics and election outcomes.

Could that be a 'limited public good'? Due to the network effects, it seems like only one website at a time would hold this status.

No, you don’t get to declare something to be a limited public good after it gets popular.

Twitter deserves credit for creating their platform, absolutely. They created a platform where everyday people can interact with top media and politicians.

Now that it's here, and they're all on it.. "the coffee shop can throw you out" seems a little trite. I don't like Trump either, set him aside, what if we were on the wrong side of Twitter's politics?

I fear letting the government regulate twitter more than I fear twitter deciding my politics aren’t acceptable. I can leave Twitter, but creating a back door for the government to regulate political speech has consequences that stretch much further than Twitter itself.

I'm not talking about the government regulating speech, I'm talking about the government regulating against Twitter deciding your politics are unacceptable. Whatever they may be. More speech.

I'd be fine with retaining Twitter's right to add commentary, as they did to Trump, as long as it's clear who's saying what.

So, you want to make political beliefs a protected class?

Would that make political parties illegal?