[AndyTheBear]

Actually I don't often like people being banned even when I acknowledge there is good reason. Usually I'm more anxious to challenge those who are zotted with Socratic questions.

But to your other point. Twitter is de facto in occupation of what by natural law belongs to everyone. That they are not a government entity becomes a moot point when the government leans hard on them to censor. If Twitter loses control of the public debate forum and another platform becomes the defacto then the government will want to lean in hard and make the other platform their proxy for censorship. One way or another liars in government want to censor and hide truths and ideas for their own end. Individuals can't switch brands for what is a broad public forum. Only the public at large can. So as is we are set up for censorship in large public forums with private companies being coerced by slimy swamp critters no matter what we do unless we pull a Musk and take over the private company controlling the forum and steadily resist the coercion to follow. We need laws and principles constraining the government swamp critters from doing this.

[Observator]

I'll read your response a couple more times, but I'm not understanding what you mean by Twitter occupying what is granted by natural law.

Regardless, in America private employers don't have to enforce the First Amendment. In his role as CEO Musk had in place several policies to prevent consumers and employees from speaking about things he considered negative. Which he is entitled to do, no one has to work for him.

For him to describe himself as a free speech absolutist is a bit rich, though.