We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Twitter is not a private company, it's a publicly tradable company that can technically even fully be owned by the Chinese government itself through perfectly legally buying their shares on the open market.
Shares of a company being traded on different company's stock exchange (which is only regulated by the government, not operated by them) has nothing to do with whether free speech is enforced on their platform.
I'm saying there are laws against foreign interference in domestic politics for obvious reasons, so if some foreign government for example - which can openly buy Twitter stocks as there is no legal restriction and can do so either directly or like with Reddit indirectly by getting Tencent to buy it off - is moderating the speech of the president, then there's a big problem.
But what if you turn that argument around - a US owned company is dominating media pandscape of other countries, and gets to decide who gets a loudspeaker and who does not. Is thay foreign interference?
The interface, as in the website, is often a centralized point. Admins can remove stuff from there which easily deals with CP reflecting to a large extent the current situation - sending CP stuff to some fringe.
In more grey areas, although admins can remove, say, free speech pictures, the picture remains there, with anyone free to create a new interface allowing the picture to be easily accessed. So it's a bit similiar to the internet where anyone can - or maybe now, could - create a new site and upload the info.
You can then add more user level jury aspects on top, but I doubt anyone wants to face that sort of stuff and moderate it if the network was to gain scale. If we go back to the centralized website though, it becomes a bit interesting.
Take Milo's banning example - just because it is the most recent and comes to mind. We have the twitter website with Milo banned. Under this scheme, we can have a twitter classic with Milo not banned. Both of them have the same network effect, the same users etc, they identical in all ways, but in one Milo is banned in the other Milo isn't with the only other difference being that they have different domain names.
When we all agree something is abhorrent, everyone uses the non cp network through the centralized website interface, while some go to... like now we have internet and tor, when something is in a bit of a grey area, however, there is an added benefit.
Say, for example, reddit took some action against everyone's opinion. The current option is for everyone to move to a new site. That's of course a bit difficult as it requires a change of habit and changing habits can be stupendously extremely hard.
With this, or more generally, with a blockchain based approach, you don't ask anyone to shift at all. There is no shifting. All users remain, the entire network effect is still there. There are no bootstrapping questions etc. No starting back from zero. All there is, is typing a new domain, far, far easier than persuading everyone to start a new town in a ghost desert place.
So, it is obviously not a utopia, but, it is a bit of an improvement. The whole thing is very much at a cable switching for phone calls stage though, so, everyone is sort of considering this matters.
