zlacker

> What? They have no “rights” to use Twitter. This is also not even remotely controversial.

> Or put another way: the government cannot coerce Twitter or any other platform to carry someone else’s speech.

You're making a straw man that's not what I said...

The government can't ask or suggest or apply undue pressure to Twitter to ban content. Social media has been sued for this successfully to get people unbanned.

The Twitter files are not even about Twitter being coerced to put things on their site. What are you even talking about?

>>TeeMas+(OP)
Requiring that Twitter not ban Person X is tantamount to requiring that they carry Person X’s content. Which is why people have no “right” to use something like Twitter - making that a right would infringe upon others’ rights.

At least that’s how it works under US law. I get the impression you’re not so familiar with American law though?

Yes they can ask and suggest removal. They cannot coerce but we have no reason to believe they did. I already linked to a long list of case law establishing this. Have a good rest of your weekend!

>>ethanb+k1
I guess it's too late for you to see this, but the latest Twitter Files show that Twitter did, in fact, feel pressured and coerced.

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/16048884298162094...

In fact, most of the comments in support of Twitter and the FBI throughout these threads are pretty decisively debunked in the continued reports.