Who's saying anything about prohibiting speech? I'm saying that private organizations should choose not to be associated with white supremacists and their ilk. Twitter's not the government. The protofascists and their broheims can go hang out on Gab dot AI for all I care. But they don't want that, because that means there aren't any targets for them to assault. Which they do, en masse, as part of a planned and intentional strategy to silence and shut up women and minorities across a wide range of topics.
Twitter does not need them. Twitter does not benefit from them. Twitter will actively lose users by pursuing these jackals as customers. And so Twitter should show them the door. But I certainly haven't said a word about the government prohibiting speech.
(I will not bother to engage with you with regards to "oh, threats aren't violence" because that is silly and you should be better than that.)
Um, you just said something about prohibiting speech. I agree, Twitter's not the government, so it's not a First Amendment issue for Twitter to do this. Nevertheless, you are calling for Twitter to block speech.
> I will not bother to engage with you with regards to "oh, threats aren't violence" because that is silly and you should be better than that.
I will not engage with you with regards to "threats are violence", because you're trying to change the definition of words, and then say that those who disagree are silly. You should be better than that, or at least better than your "argument" in the last paragraph.
Twitter does not need them. Twitter does not benefit from them. Twitter will actively lose users by pursuing these jackals as customers. And so Twitter should show them the door. But I certainly haven't said a word about the government prohibiting speech.
(I will not bother to engage with you with regards to "oh, threats aren't violence" because that is silly and you should be better than that.)