This isn't the limitation of free speech, this is a private company telling one of its users that they aren't welcome due to their behavior. It's like if you were at a store and started soapboxing about <insert alt right conspiracy bullshit here> loudly right in front of the register, the manager of the store is 100% allowed to ask you to leave. Freedom of speech means your speech isn't illegal, not that you will suffer no consequences for it.
ETA: some people made some comments below this that made me want to clarify a few things:
1) Twitter being publicly traded does not automatically make them beholden to every person on Earth, especially in matters of free speech. They're still allowed governing their platform in whatever way they see fit.
2) a better analogy might be a comedy club on open mic nigh.t. If you get up on stage and start making racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Jokes the club owner has every right to throw you out. Yes, it's a public forum, but limiting your use of what is ultimately a private (i.e. not government owned) establishment does not constitute a violation of your rights unless it can be proven that you were denied access due to your membership in a protected class, or based on your gender, etc. Free speech doesn't protect you from (peaceful and appropriate) backlash.
The comment you replied to doesn't say free speech and doesn't invoke the constitution.
They are talking about the comedy club where the owner permanently bans anyone who makes jokes on certain topics. People stop going to it.
Which I think Twitter is going to have to have some standards about what sort of behavior they allow, it's just that there is risk of going too far and making the platform boring and useless. Banning accounts used for harassment is not going too far. Banning accounts because some arbitrary number of people don't like what they say probably is.
I think your analogy falls a little flat because 'right in front of the register' at a store isn't literally purpose-built to be a speech platform, as Twitter is.
That only works in practice if there are public spaces where you can excercise your free speech. If everything is a private space, then it's fine that the government won't limit your speech - but that promise becomes pretty vacuous.
I firmly believe that if something becomes as big as twitter (facebook, google, amazon, ...), it becomes infrastructure and should be subject to similar rules as the government. It should no longer be treated like that mom and pop groceries store.
It took people centuries to wrangle civil rights (including free speech and parliamentary representation) from their states - in that process changing them into democracies. Before, all of that was completely unheard of. I wonder if in future, people will fight the same way for free speech on Twitter, universal access to Amazon's shipping infrastructure, the right to be indexed (or forgotten) on Google, and so on.
I'm not talking about free speech. This is a company that didn't censor <x>, deciding to censor <x>. I'm sure the users that discussed/read/were-interested-in <x> will be thrilled. That is all.
The even bigger problem is we're assuming they were banned for "hate" speech because Twitter hasn't even said why yet. If they took down tweets that they felt were hate speech and communicated to the speaker and the community I would be more okay with it. A silent ban of dozens of accounts is their right as a business but I'll still say it's a stupid decision.
Bear in mind that some people consider this site to be sexist and racist - check out the #hnwatch hashtag on Twitter. Everyone commenting here "good", consider that as a member of HN, others tar you with the same brush. Still so happy?
I didn't know that hashtag and was not surprised to see that one of its regular users is someone who likes to use autism as a metaphor for men working in tech.
There are plain facts about the world which are often considered "hate speech". FBI crime statistics, for example. They gotta be banned to maintain the narrative.
As long as it is applied consistently. Are they also banning those spewing hate for Trump or the police?
It is just like everyone who is rioting with slogans like 'not my President.' These same people were giving Trump a hard time when he said the election system was rigged and didn't enthusiastically say he would support the results of the election. The left is doing a good job reenforcing the exact image many people voted against. The elitist attitude of tolerance unless disagreed with.
EDIT
Thanks for the downvotes and further proving my point. I would never vote for Trump, but simply pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does get people upset.
With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to extend that speech to others. Because if we leave who is heard to simply "who can speak the loudest", we won't find out when we're wrong.
See also: Mill's "On Liberty", available now in every Intro to Philosophy textbook.
While I agree with your statement, I think it's important to protect the concept of free speech in many places and to disrespect companies who don't.
Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping).
I think generally views like this are better left in the spotlight of the public where they can be properly argued with and not dragged into private forums and facebook feeds where it's much harder for people to see a wider response to them. Banning them is harmful to people who are getting a casual interest in their ideas and start reading up on it. When the only place they can do that is Breitbart or similar, how do you think that'll go?
Absolutely, the only way to truly deal with racism, sexism, and a whole host of other -isms is education, whether through experience that teaches otherwise, or a facts-based approach that leaves little room for argument.
My problem is so much of what goes on in these public message boards is not fact-based. Alt right groups pander to people's irritations and insecurities in a million small ways. They blatantly lie about individuals or scenarios. They set up straw men, then demonize and demolish them with words like 'cuck' and 'illegal' to inflame their readers, even when the people they're discussing are not those things at all. And when they're confronted with a dissenting viewpoint, they ignore it and move to the next. It is literally impossible for rational individuals to have discussions with them.
I think part of the problem is people don't tend to internalize lessons taught by others without respect for that person, and on the internet, everyone is a stranger. I don't want this kind of speech banned because it's offensive - I want it banned because its nonsensical, it enrages people only looking for a reason to be angry, it gives a platform to people that can't even defend their views without resorting to constant insults, it's a waste of time. That's probably my lack of caffeine talking, though.
>Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping).
Everyone keeps making comments like this. "This is a massive injustice! Unless Twitter was justified idk."
Maybe we should wait for a statement from Twitter before passing judgment.
Ok, so Twitter can definitely ban some people from its website, but "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" taken at face value, is pretty terrifying, especially given how our president elect has responded to criticism. Those consequences should be bounded to essentially: ... and now they don't like you anymore, and won't invite you to parties.
Honestly, if there wasn't censorship of alt-right views to begin with on Facebook and elsewhere, then perhaps more people would have been motivated to get out and vote for what they believe in, rather than thinking that they had already won.
Or maybe everyone on Facebook unfriends people with differing opinions anyway so it would only benefit those within the white supremacist echo chamber.
