Thread by @RichardBSpencer

Another bad, tired argument about de-platforming goes like this:

“We don’t want government regulating social media. They’re private companies. And what would happen once the liberals take over?

Again, no.

These “private companies” have a monopoly over the public square, transaction space, and, increasingly, political outcomes in the 21st century.

You can’t go to the next social network down the street or build your own; effectively, a handful of companies are it. And being that social media and funding sources are vital to elections, they must be considered to be of public concern.

In opposing de-platforming, we are attemting to achieve *transparency*, *consistency*, and the *ability to appeal*. These goals are served by the treatment of social media and payment processors as public utilities.

At the moment, these companies are black boxes. You get banned out of the blue, seemingly at the whim of some individual employee, for a violation you don’t understand and which is haphazardly enforced. Appeal if you want, but it’s a shot in the dark.

Yes, government regulations can sometimes suck, but they offer clear guidelines that we can follow—and clear paths for an appeal process.

As to whether deplatforming would be worse under the Democrats, let me express some skepticism due to my own personal experience.

Under Obama, I had access to all social media and payment platforms. It was only after Trump got elected that I was banned from Twitter (before being let back on a month later).

While Republicans controlled the presidency and both Houses, I lost most all social media and payment accounts. Twitter is my last refuge.

Forgive me for wondering if things might be better—and certainly no worse—under Democrats.