In many places utility companies have a monopoly. Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Internet, there are a billion other places you can post content.
In the physical world, the analog here is "you are standing on a box in front of the courthouse, shouting today's particular theory on some regressive tax, and nobody is listening (but nobody is pulling you down and shoving a sock in your mouth either)"
The online equivalent of the image I have painted above is, "You go on Twitter and you post something, and nobody is interested and it just gets ignored."
Twitter removing it is the same as someone pulling you off the box and shoving a sock in your mouth.
Until that actual public square exists online, Twitter, while they may have the legal right to silence you, have an ethical responsibility not to - because THEY chose to provide the platform that they knew everyone would use.
If they want ideological filtering they should make it part of the signup requirements.
Your analogy is entirely wrong. The equivalent to standing on a box on the street is hosting content on your own server, which anyone can still do. The equivalent of someone pulling you off your box is someone coming to your server rack and yanking the cables out, which Twitter is not doing.
>Until that actual public square exists online, Twitter, while they may have the legal right to silence you, have an ethical responsibility not to - because THEY chose to provide the platform that they knew everyone would use.
You are under the misapprehension that Twitter (or Facebook or Google, or any corporation for that matter) has any ethics at all. They exist to make profit. And anything that doesn't align with that is unimportant to them.
I'd also point out that on Twitter or Facebook, you aren't the customer, you're the product. And they keep you in your little section of the feedlot (filter bubble) to keep you pacified and feeling good, as they profit off your PII and eyeballs.
