Platforms like Twitter have become de facto utilities. They should be prevented from censoring anything that is not breaking the law, which means filtering tweets on a per country basis to comply with national laws, nothing less, nothing more.
> Platforms like Twitter have become de facto utilities.
No, they have not.
I cannot live without water or electricity; perhaps also a general Internet connection (in the modern world). I live my life just fine without Twitter.
Twitter is an online service that some people find useful and others ignore completely. There is nothing utility-like about it.
Can political or civil society organisations exist without access to social media platforms these days? No. These platforms are utilities of the modern democratic and pluralistic society.
Because this is well established fact. You can research the topic for yourself if you wish. Just a quick Googling: [1]
Social media have been key to political campaigning in the last 10 years or so. This made headlines in relations to the Brexit referendum in the UK and it had made headlines after Obama's first presidential campaign which was a pioneer.
Lots of politicians have chosen to make Twitter their main method of communication. I am able to speak to my representatives via Twitter quite easily while they ignore my emails. They can choose (if they wish) to block me on Twitter and limit my ability to communicate with them or see important information they post there and not elsewhere. Either it’s a utility or our politicians need to be held to stricter rules re communication with their constituents.
If politicians choose to use Twitter, but could just as easily choose communication on the web by other means (like email, or another platform) then that makes Twitter merely convenient, not a "de facto utility".
Modern political campaigns are fought and won on social media. Politicians do not choose to use them, they have to use them to have a chance to get their message across.
> Modern political campaigns are fought and won on social media.
For the current definition of "modern".
In the 1800s then-modern political campaigns were fought and won in newspapers and pamphlets.
Pre-WW2 then-modern political campaigns were fought and won on the radio.
Post-WW2 then-modern political campaigns were fought and won on television.
None of those were treated as public utilities AFAICT, so I'm not why the medium of communication now suddenly makes a difference (Marshal McLuhan notwithstanding).
Trump didn't win because he personally had social media accounts from which he spread his message - canvassing by his followers (until they kept going Nazi and getting banned) were what was effective. Trump's own social media use has been a net negative for him, he mostly just rants and shitposts. If he'd been banned from Twitter earlier, he might have gotten more accomplished.
Also, coverage of Trump by the mainstream media was likely far more effective than social media at getting him elected. If nothing else, it provided the material that got spread across social media.
Obama's victory was due in large part to social media as well, but not due to Obama's personal accounts.
Trump utilized newspapers, TV news networks, rallies, and word of mouth as well. He's banned from twitter right now but still tops the poll of who would win the next election
You can do that on email, irl, with real letters, etc. It hasn’t been a problem. If someone is particularly harassing you then it becomes a legal issue.
What Twitter could do is just stop promoting and spreading content people don’t like. Rather than completely ban problem users like trump, just stop showing them in trending feeds and give people the option to block the users so you don’t see them.
Yes - a lot of people claim that shadow banning, downranking etc. are censorship. I disagree, they necessary to keep online places as civil as they are.
There's also content that is regarded by mental health experts as harmful in large quantities - downranking that is also important to not cause existential harm to people.
It's legal to use the n word in the US as far as I know, but I think harassment probably isn't ('spamming' sounds like harassment), that's where the balancing act is. Now, it is not legal to throw the n word at someone in most European countries. Hence why I said that these platforms need to filter on a per country basis for all countries they want to operate in.
As I said, Twitter and other major platforms have become de facto utilities and it's no longer a valid argument to claim that as private businesses they are free to do as they please because they yield too much power.
I have a Twitter account but I've barely used it ever, and do okay for myself socially. I don't think it's a utility. I have plenty of options, and use the ones that interest me most.
So the governments would pay Twitter for moderation and for subsidizing the platform, if advertisers leave in response?
I think that the governments should treat social media platforms similarly to other addictive/harmful substances, such as junk food, sugary drinks or tobacco... with a focus on prevention and education.
And using these platforms for official communication (from elected officials and public services) should be either prohibited or heavily discouraged.
