This is such a dangerous path to go down, and it's really easy to see where we end up.
Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.
No, I don't think tech companies should enforce ideological conformity, but they shouldn't enforce ideological equality either. A lot of people, especially on HN, seem to have this idea that if a rule or policy can't be exactly defined, it shouldn't be used. It's not possible to codify "no assholes allowed", so we should just abandon that idea.
Look, the reason we don't have a law against Nazi ideas in America is that it's too dangerous to give the government that power. If we did have such a law, and it were abused, there's no higher power to appeal to. We have nearly absolute free speech not because all speech deserves equal consideration, but simply because there is no practical legal alternative. But it is crucial to understand that since we can't give the government that power, society is obligated to pick up the slack. Nazis cannot be punished legally, so they must be punished socially. We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.
What I'm describing is basically majority rule, and I understand how dangerous it is. Frankly, over the course of history, it's usually gone poorly. But there is no alternative. If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't. If you don't like racism, so you decide to live your life "colorblind", you're helping racists, as they obviously won't join you. As a member of society, you have an obligation to not only avoid helping racists, but actively work against them by loudly arguing with them, depriving them of opportunities to promote or implement their ideas, and maybe kicking them out of a party if they try to start some shit.
Twitter can't be neutral, because everybody else isn't. In fact it's not really possible to be neutral, they can either endorse the status quo, or work against it. If they abuse their incredibly powerful position, there is a higher power we can appeal to who is required to be neutral in such cases.
No one is saying they should "enforce ideological equality". What I am saying is that it's dangerous for a tech company to tip the scales like this.
Under your majoritarian rule proposal we'd just end up with any idea sufficiently derided by the loudest groups and most influential twitter personalities effectively banned. Especially given that 140-characters isn't enough space to realistically make full throated arguments, the prospect of people being misinterpreted is resoundingly high.
>We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.
This statement is just Neomarxism repackaged. Taken to its logical conclusion, these corporations should become essentially political entities that enforce whatever ideological consensus the majority deems palatable. Twitter thus becomes a tool for sociocultural engineering. Given how poorly the company operates today, they should probably stay away from trying to broaden their mandate.
>If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't...
What? No I'm not. No one is neutral and those who say they are are lying. It sounds like you're half trying to Kafkatrap me. Just because I don't endorse Twitter's rule-making in this context does not mean I'm "helping racists". Especially since the definition of who is a Nazi or a racist seems to be continually expanding, forgive me for being skeptical that if they abuse their power anything would be done. You'd be helping the Nazis, remember?
Sorry, I'm just using "you" because I need a subject for my examples. It's the colloquial "you", I'm not literally talking about you. I'll stop.
Anyway, I agree that no one is neutral, that's my point. Twitter already is a political entity, it already is a tool for sociocultural engineering. It can't not be. The policy of "any and all legal speech will be allowed" is a political choice and an endorsement of the status quo. Allowing Nazi speech is obviously not as bad as literally being a Nazi, but it is an acceptance of the way things are. Allowing speech is just as political as blocking speech.
There is no way to avoid making these decisions, and the more power one has, the more the choice matters. A free-for-all policy is equivalent to an individual staying silent when their friend makes a racist joke, but with much greater consequences. If the people in charge of Twitter didn't want this responsibility, they shouldn't have created the site.
Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.