Who Twitter & friends choose to allow or not on their services doesn't really involve the First Amendment at all. Or rather, it doesn't as long as they're allowed to choose for themselves. Regulation trying to control who they can kick out and why would implicate the First Amendment quite directly.
If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech, but not a constitutional right.
>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech
Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
That's a huge claim. I've encountered lots of people who have been erased from social media over time and invariably they haven't harmed anyone - not unless you consider "saying things other people dislike" to be harm, of course, which is what's behind the whole speech is violence trope from the left.
> Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals
"Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them?
For this to be a no-true-Scotsman, I would have to have claimed all bans, which I did not do. It's not an appeal to purity.
Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically, because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one.
How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
> you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one
No I didn't, I have been subscribed to her Youtube channel for years, actually. I didn't dig up anything. Even if I had, that wouldn't detract even from iota from it.
I've also had my FB account suspended after 9 years of use, 100+ RL friends, using my real name all along, plenty of photos of me and being in tagged in photos, because apparently, people who wanted me off FB reported my profile as not being a real person. I didn't scan my ID and send it to FB out of principle. Mind you, nothing I posted or commented violated the rules, I never got any "trouble" until I flat out couldn't log in because, I guess, "typically" several accounts reporting a profile means it's fake, and the people who act on those reports probably don't get paid enough to actually take an in-depth look at the profiles they kill.
I'll admit, I'm glad, it was the best thing FB ever did for me. But I'm not all people, for some people that would be terrible, and terribly unfair. I know first hand that there is no process worth a fuck, and people just tend to assume "they wouldn't be treated this way unless there was a good reason for it". It's as old as cowardice and selfishness are.
If "false positives" are just a thing you would accept as long as you aren't hit, then I'll just act as if you were removed in this way. Another unfortunate false positive, nothing to see, really. Then there is also nothing I would have to to "nitpick to death" [by making a single comment with questions you ignore, no less] either, very tidy. If you don't care for due process for others, no due process for you.
> How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
I take this as the answer "nobody to my knowledge" to the question of who she harmed, and "nope" to the question whether you have actual knowledge of the actual individual cases. "there's going to be outliers" isn't enough, that you resort to saying I "went to lengths to dig up an example" just shows you don't necessarily shy from making authoritative statements about things you don't actually know.
The fact is that the speech was curtailed, if no reason is offered that doesn't mean "maybe there's a good reason, so let's just assume that and move along". You wouldn't want to be treated that way.
> To the amalgamation of politicals and criminals, with which the concentration camps began both in Germany and Russia, soon a third element is added, which would soon form the majority of all inmates. This largest group consisted of people who hadn't done anything that stood in any rational relation to their imprisonment, be it in their own mind or in that of their torturers. Without them the camps could have have existed, that is, they would not have survived the first years of the regime.
and
> Criminals don't actually don't belong in a concentration camp. That they still form a permanent category in all camps is, from the viewpoint of the totalitarian power apparatus, a kind of concession to the prejudices of society, which in this way can be made to get used to their existence the most easily.
and
> the first crucial step on the way to totalitarian power is the killing of the juridical person, which in the case of statelessness happens automatically because the stateless person ends up outside of all law. In the case of totalitarian power this automatic killing becomes a planned murder, because concentration camps are always placed outside of the penal system, and the inmates are never to be put there "for punishable or other offenses" (also see Maunz, p. 50). Under all conditions totalitatarian power takes care to put people into the camps, which only are -- Jews, carriers of diseases, members of dying classes -- but have already lost their ability to act, be it for good or bad.
-- Hannah Arendt
But how can marching in goosestep be wrong, when not marching is goosestep is so scary, right?
If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech, but not a constitutional right.