Zerohedge Banned from Twitter

Zerohedge, a cranky, contrarian, conspiracy-theorizing site with a right wing tilt, has been banned from Twitter.

Zerohedge was far more intellectual than the likes of Breitbart et al.  Not like Trump at all, and often criticizing him.

The owner, Tyler Durden, is some kind of professional financial analyst (a very bearish one, hence the name Zerohedge, with the meme "everything ultimately goes to Zero").

Hugh, you sent me a link to an article by a blogger named "Washington" (a center-right political/economic commentator) published at Zerohedge about how the CIA invented the term "conspiracy theorist" to smear US critics.

That was Zerohedge at its (somewhat rare) finest.

Yesterday on Twitter, Bloomberg corporation tweeted to great satisfaction that Zerohedge had been "permanently suspended."  (I don't follow Bloomberg.com, but this was a paid-for "promotion" that automagically showed in my twitter feed.)  

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder if there was some connection.  Did Mike Bloomberg call the owner of Twitter and complain???  Both Democratic billionaires, they probably already know each other.

After all, in some sense bearish Zerohedge is a kind of competitor to bullish Bloomberg.

The twitter comments were mostly negative, with a few centrist-Democratic-Party-types saying they had it coming.

One commenter saying that as a private publisher, Twitter was well within its rights to refuse to publish ANYONE.

"Not a matter of free speech" he said.

I see that claim a lot.  I disagree.  I see Twitter as a monopoly social media PLATFORM, not a PUBLISHER.

Twitter is made possible by the public internet, and the public internet also means there's practically only one choice.

Therefore, it ought to be considered Common Carrier, and REQUIRED to transmit anything not in violation of law.

Or be turned into a public utility.

IIRC, social media platforms tend to plead non-responsibilty for content when the legal tables are turning against them.  But along with that, still having the choice to shut anyone down.

Nowadays, centrists want everyone to be "protected" from narratives that differ from the Official Line.

I don't agree.  I agree with Justice Brandeis that we need a "marketplace of ideas" where we can see everything and judge for ourselves.  This became the law for speech and print with the Brandenberg (1969) decision by Earl Warren.  Prior to that, our "1st ammendment" was violated with impunity, and the likes of John Stanford were arrested in 1964 simply for selling communist books in Texas.

But the urge for censorship never dies.

Another commenter suggested that banning Zerohedge was just like what Communists would do.

This Communist disagrees.  American Communists have long been persecuted through censorship laws, and litigated against censorship in the USA more than anyone.  CPUSA founder Charles Ruthenberg spent many years in prison.

Now free speech online implies a Free Platform, but it does not necessarily imply a Free Amplifier.

Social media do not necessarily need to promote speech that some find offensive.

Promotion is when, like the Bloomberg-promoted notice that Zerohedge had been banned, a message from someone previously unknown is stuck into your stream.  That sort of thing can be restricted in my view, even on a Platform.