Then these media outlets probably shouldn’t even exist anymore.
It would seem to me that Twatter has no more of an obligation to provide unfettered access to the NY Post than the NY Post would be obligated to post links to articles in the NY Daily News.
Am I missing something here?
The point is that social media companies advertise themselves as neutral platforms for the public to express themselves freely without fear of censorship beyond the "common sense" censorship of blocking pornography, violence, and criminal acts. Their actions of shadow banning accounts that express certain political views is counter to the social contract they have made with the public. Then, when they are called on their bad faith actions, they cite nebulous or superficial reasons or don't give any reason at all for the hypocrisy. The NY Post story really doesn't violate any rules and is a clear case of political censorship, which Dorsey has repeatedly said in the past that Twitter does not do. Dorsey lied, freedom died.
Twitter either needs to change their tune and declare that they have a bias against conservatism, or do a 180 deg. turn and be truly neutral in their censorship efforts. Lying to the public is verboten.
“Am I missing something here?”
—
Yes, the government is subsidizing the social medias via special privileges and exemptions. Remove them - and then ask again.
Also, the ongoing restraint of trade on conservative interests is something that needs to prosecuted as a civil rights violation - especially grievous considering the government perks the socials get.
It’s kind of like the phone company saying they don’t like what you are saying so you can’t talk on their lines.
Yes!