> Twitter is a private company and do whatever they want to do. It is their platform.

They actually aren't a private company, yet, but it sounds like they probably will be soon.

Just because they can do something doesn't mean they should. A huge amount of our public discourse flows through platforms controlled by companies. If you want those platforms to start to ban everyone who disobeys some set of rules, who would you like writing those rules? Are you comfortable with them making them up as they go along?

Splitting hairs, I will assume you knew what I meant because them being public as far as having shares out does not change anything about this argument. They are not a government system.

To answer your question, yes. Rules (like laws in government) change overtime. Twitter helpfully has a section outlining their rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules . It also clearly states that they can update these rules at any point.

As far as who sets the rules, Twitter. It is their platform. How is that a question?

The point is that when a social network is large enough to become significant in the way people communicate, the way thought evolves in society, etc, it becomes a societal issue that the owners of that network can (and, as you keep pointing out, are completely within their rights to) arbitrarily restrict what people can say.

In case it's not clear, I don't claim that Twitter doesn't have the legal right to moderate their platform. I claim that it is a problem for society that more and more of our public discourse happens on platforms with this type of arbitrary moderation.

You don't have to use twitter, Facebook, or any other platform. If you are dissatisfied with the rules then make your own.

Just because something has become a major player in communication, doesn't meant these companies should be obligated to turn a blind eye to content that they find disagreeable.

Also, I have yet to see a case where anyone has been "arbitrarily" restricted. They conform to the rules as clearly stated on their website. If anything I have seen that they are not doing as well as I wish they were at enforcing their rules. But it largely makes sense that the bigger you are the more scrutiny you will have on your tweets.

It isn't like just because you have an account on twitter you can't have an account on some alternative.

I've tried twice to make it clear that I'm talking about the wider societal issue of the growing importance of these platforms in public discourse combined with their moderation policies (and the arbitrariness of those policies — since they can change at any time without notice).

Since each of your replies ignores this and focuses on individual issues — unrelated to my comment and uninteresting to me — like which platform(s) a person chooses to use, whether Twitter has the right to moderate, or whether they have historically used their arbitrary moderation power in a way that you find acceptable, I'm going to disengage from this thread at this point since I don't think we can enlighten each other in any meaningful way.