I appreciate the response, notwithstanding the intelligence insult. You're conflating many issues here. Free Speech, Prior Restraint, Monopoly each are distinct concepts that you've rolled into a ball and gloated that you were able to make some coin. Good for you on the financial side. More money to gamble in Vegas now, huh?
Legally, this is not a first amendment issue because the government is not involved. I'm surprised lawyers are trying to apply first amendment principles onto a free market situation. If you don't like the household analogy try Home Depot. Are you going to say that Home Depot doesn't have the right to refuse service to any customer? If so, it's amazing to me that just a few years ago conservatives argued that any business should be able to refuse service to any customer for any reason whether they be LGTBQ, Muslim or other. Political expediency is equally as amazing for all sides of the political spectrum.
Prior Restraint? You don't think they have ToS that allows them to boot anyone at any time? Have you forgotten that in most cases each of these companies have a multiple "strike" process and these accounts have reached the end of their rope? NONE of this is a surprise to investors other than Donald Trump's actions. Media has been discussing the potential of a permanent Trump ban at the end of his tenure because he violated their terms of service, repeatedly. Twitter recently stated that if Trump violated their ToS after his tenure he'd fall under the same restrictions as anyone else. As an aside, you are overstating Twitter's stock fall. It's dropped ~10% since 1/6. Certainly that was due to Trump's suspension.
I'm curious what accountability for irresponsible use of free speech looks like. Let's take Twitter out of the question. Does @Dionysus have the right to ban a user that doesn't follow his ToS?
Last edited: Jan 11, 2021