[goldstategop]

Its called shadow banning.

But its legal because the First Amendment only prohibits government censorship.

Webmasters and individuals are free to decide what speech they will allow on their Internet sites/pages.

The liberals at Twitter are free to do what they want.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"But its legal because the First Amendment only prohibits government censorship."

I used to agree with this line of reasoning. Until I found out recently that these same social media companies lobbied the government to be regulated as public use platforms, in other words the town square. They did this to shield themselves from publishing laws which means that they are not liable for what people say on their platform and so therefore cannot be sued.

That's all fine and good except that now they are not acting as a public use platforms. I think the federal government should pull their legal protections against libel as they are no longer acting like a public use platform. If they want to impose their viewpoint on us, then they can be liable for those that are on their platforms.

[Drew68]

The liberals at Twitter are free to do what they want.

Doesn’t mean we have to tolerate it and walk away without putting up a fight.

[EVO X]

The liberals at Twitter are free to do what they want.

They are a publicly traded company. If they take government research money which is probable, they have issues. Same with FB.

[AnonymousConservative]

Like you can deny service based on race or religion?

His Holiness the Almighty God Emperor and President of The United States will deal with this before he leaves office.

[gogeo]

Maybe not a First Amendment issue, but I suspect there’legal mischief to be done anyway.

[Yaelle]

What needs to happen to get social media to be considered media under the first amendment?