censorship is a concept that pertains *only* to governmental action. [updated]

The term expression means freedom from government interference, repression or punitive action and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand financial assistance or materially express your opinions at the expense of other men who do not want to support you. Freedom of expression includes the freedom to disagree, disobey and support opponents. “Right” does not include the physical exercise of that right by others; It's impossible. Using physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or delete anyone's opinion or post. Only the government can do that. Censorship is a concept that refers only to government actions.

~Lo Rand from his "Neofascist Frontiers" column compiled in Ion Rand's column

Collectivists have for many years defended the idea that refusing to pay an opponent is a violation of the opponent's right to freedom of expression and an act of “censorship”.
They argue that "it is censorship" when a newspaper refuses to rent or publish a book whose ideas are completely contrary to its principles.
They claim "it's censorship" when merchants refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces them, insults them, offends them...
Newton Mino [the FCC chairman at the time] said at the time: “The ratings, the censorship of advertisers, networks, affiliates who reject programs offered in their territory. This is the same Mr. Mino who threatens to revoke the license of a station that doesn't match his views on the program - and who claims it's not censorship...
“[It's a collective idea] means that the ability to provide the physical means to express an idea prevents a person from accepting the idea. In doing so – and paying a TV sponsor for commentators who choose to discredit his beliefs – the newspaper owner must pass stories on his pages to any rebellious young men who claim to be a slave to the newspaper. "If another group's liability becomes void."

~ Ion Rand, from his article "The Rights of Man" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Hat Tip by Gus Van Horn , who noted that his misunderstanding persists to this day; Kolgov's claims on the day of the random rally 'coincide with the accusations conservatives like to make today about various social networks' - and while Elon Musk's heart is in the 'right place' for freedom of expression, it still works. freedom of speech means supporting only what the government allows. It's not true.

To put it bluntly [as Van Horn says], I often disagree with the way Twitter runs its platform, so I appreciate (and now believe) that it's mostly up to its owner to do what 'he wants. .

It's no less boring than watching Elon Musk roll around like a white knight - but the same bullshit (which the left thinks everyone is) helps pave the way for 'censorship' and the government to act and exacerbate the real problem.

However, Truth in the Market argues that "Twitter's First Amendment mask concept is just plain inconsistent" and worse, further confuses people about who can censor, which could pave the way for censorship. ( Disinformation Commissioner , anyone?) - "His vision for Twitter is to create content that should have less politically motivated confinement."

Much has been said about what Musk wants to do and whether this is a realistic way to maximize the value of the platform. Twitter's revenue as a single platform is generated by advertisers who want to reach a wider audience. This means that Twitter, like other social media platforms, must consider the cost and benefits of conferencing for its users, while maintaining a balance that adds value to the platform. The history of containment of content on social networks shows that these platforms have found the necessary rules against harassment, abuse, spam, bots, pornography, hostility and misinformation.
It's easy to see how necessary harassment and abuse rules are to prevent users from being harmed. There seems to be a widespread public opinion that such discussions are unbearable. Similarly, spam, bots, and pornography, while legal discourse, are not exactly what social media users want to see.
But there is as much controversy over hate speech and confusion, no matter how much you agree not to ask, as there is controversy over what is acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong. Social orientation and political issues. It's one thing to ban Nazis because of their hatred. It's quite another, of course , to prevent an outstanding feminist writer from being "misled." And saying that crazy conspiracy theories like QAnon should be easy is another thing to legitimize questioning the effectiveness of masks or vaccines . In these areas, Musk can offer an alternative because, to a large extent, this is seen as a content shift from big tech companies.
It appears that the speech control market is currently not served by major competitors in the social media space. If Twitter can block the needle by offering a more politically neutral moderation policy that still manages sites with enough content to isolate users, it might work and even impact other social media's containment policies.
Let the market decide
Root of the problem: Conservatives who support distrust and regulation of big tech companies for fear of political bias should be prepared to step back and let the market work. And liberals who defend the right of private companies to set the rules for their platforms should defend this policy. Let the market decide.

Content may be reproduced under PC.BlogSpot.Com copyright © link and attribution.