Facebook and Twitter are not essential platforms, and I detest the idea that they must be made to allow anyone to say anything on them.
If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there. He can write letters to the editors of news sites and see if they’ll publish them. He can do TV interviews - any network would kill for those ratings right now.
Or he can stand outside and yell.
No one is entitled to a privately owned platform publishing their demonstrably violent rhetoric, even if they’re famous. Media platforms have always been allowed to be gatekeepers of whatever content they choose; the internet age didn’t change that.
Your point about corporate governance being a generally bad thing is valid, but I don’t think this case is anywhere near that.
A “user” and a “streamer” are two different things. Anyone can create an account and be a viewer who consumes content on Twitch. That’s not the same as being a content creator who draws viewers to the platform and implicitly represents the brand.
You can go scream racist nonsense in the town square and then quietly shop at Whole Foods. But if a Whole Foods employee was found screaming racist nonsense in the town square, Whole Foods might fire them for it, and they are well within their rights to do so.
Obligatory “I know streamers aren’t employees.” Their relationship to Twitch is similar enough to that of an employee that the same logic applies.
If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there. He can write letters to the editors of news sites and see if they’ll publish them. He can do TV interviews - any network would kill for those ratings right now.
Or he can stand outside and yell.
No one is entitled to a privately owned platform publishing their demonstrably violent rhetoric, even if they’re famous. Media platforms have always been allowed to be gatekeepers of whatever content they choose; the internet age didn’t change that.