What about censoring hate speech? Racist speech? Sexist speech? Xenophobic speech? Outright lies? False information? Trump has tweeted all of the above from time to time. What value does that sort of speech have?
You might find the first three to be subjective, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, so how about the lies and false information? Should a person in a position of power be permitted to lie to people to sway their opinion? I would have no problem if Twitter were to fact-check Trump's (or anyone else wielding such power) tweets and delete or somehow diminish those that are outright lies, assuming there were checks on such a thing to avoid politicization of that fact checking.
Who gets to decide whether someone's option falls under these categories? Anyone who is put in charge of classifying such things will have a lot of power that can easily be mismanaged.
Furthermore, for what reason would you trust such a person?
If you already distrust Trump will you trust him more if some nameless moderator will decide which posts are okay and which aren't?
Besides, he's the POTUS and he has a lot of money, if twitter will start messing with his posts he can easily set up a service on his own.
> Who gets to decide whether someone's option falls under these categories? Anyone who is put in charge of classifying such things will have a lot of power that can easily be mismanaged.
And will also be selectively enforced, as we've seen on basically every single social media platform today.
You might find the first three to be subjective, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, so how about the lies and false information? Should a person in a position of power be permitted to lie to people to sway their opinion? I would have no problem if Twitter were to fact-check Trump's (or anyone else wielding such power) tweets and delete or somehow diminish those that are outright lies, assuming there were checks on such a thing to avoid politicization of that fact checking.