Trump's threats were repugnant and disgusting, but it's not Twitter or Facebook's place to tell people that. It's important, as citizens, to hear what politicians are saying and form our own opinions. The consequences of Trump's threats will not go away just because Twitter told everybody they were violent threats. Shooting the messengers won't help anything.
Have corporations imposing their "morals" on public communication would be a very dangerous slippery slope, IMO.
These are media and ad companies and people want them be the gatekeepers of permissible speech.
But in response to the subject of your comment: don't they already do this regardless? Isn't inaction a moral response in itself? In the same way that [as a loose example, so don't shoot me if it falls short] Coca Cola or Nestle see no moral problem with consuming entire regions' fresh water supplies for profit? Is it that American Express or Wells Fargo making a moral decision when they deny a credit application to somebody who may need it to eat? Surely those institutions are as public as any social media platform.
I think there is a lot more to work through there. Personally, I'm in the camp of the people should push for what they see as the right action: be it that a beverage company stops exploiting disadvantaged regions for their fresh water supplies or an internet company tags a post/comment as containing whatever kind of information might be questionable. Long, slow, hard road may it be—most people seem inclined to do better by each other on the large scale. The more options they have to do so, and the less potential gain by acting anti-socially, the better. It's definitely a complex problem [trying not to ramble, but even "acting out" can be a social act rather than anti-social, hence the complexity].
Boy...
As a social network, they should protect users from obscenity and hate speech, but as a media outlet they really shouldn't editorialize.
In some sense, at least as I see it, there's a big difference between following a friend or coworker versus following Trump or some celebrity.
I agree, but I think interfering with the communication channel is the wrong response. To me it feels like, "We don't like what Trump is saying, so we should stop letting people see it." Realistically that isn't going to make Trump go away or change his policies or teach him a lesson because he can just as easily give a press release, give a live speech, hold a rally, call into the news, etc. It won't change the message, just the medium.
Looking at it another way, Facebook employees should have the same responses available to them as everybody else. If they don't like what Trump said, they should reply to his post and tell him, go out and protest, or whatever. But what they shouldn't do is force their opinion on everybody else.
If the employees are dissatisfied with the direction of their company they are free to voice their dissatisfaction and ask for a change.
Personally I don't participate in any of those platforms, so I don't have a stake in any of it.
I do work in the larger publishing sphere, though, and I can assure you I would not appreciate being told I would be forced to run a regular column for an authority figure spewing misinformation and vitriol.