Twitter is not a monopoly by any stretch. Regulating how sites handle speech just adds an additional hurdle for new, better platforms to enter. I should not have to have an expensive lawyer on retainer to read injunction requests just for running a <$2/month IRC server because some random important/popular people decided to use publish their manifesto on it.
This has already been tested in court in the Prager University vs Google, LLC [1] trial and was resolved very quickly. Freedom of speech does not mean another individual has to assist you in publishing or advertising your speech. You are free to shout from a soap box but no one has to provide you that soap box.
I really think people over emphasize the power that social media sites have. They own a lot of eyeball market share but they do not have the power to prevent you from publishing your opinions. Anyone can make their own website, their own Mastadon instance (see Gab if you want proof), their own Peertube instance, a lot of work is done by the open source community to make it easy to publish content not reliant on large corporations.
Considering that Parler was curbstomped by Google/Apple/AWS last week, it's safe to say that Twitter doesn't operate in a naturally competitive market.
Parlor was incredibly lazy and opportunistic. The massive data leak and slamming by one of the most notorious sites on the internet, The Pirate Bay, suggests strongly that Parlor was not pursued in the most competent manor. [1] [2]
There are dozens of webhosts other than Google/Apple/AWS and plenty of ways to collocate directly. Even if you wanted to host something no provider could touch, you could publish a front
Picking some of the most recognizable and PR influenced companies in the world to host your publicly and deliberately controversial content is just plain stupid. They could have just seen how the pirate bay responded and copied them. Heck, since Parlor didn't host anything actually illegal, they could have potentially used the .swiss or .ch TLD since Switzerland has pretty strong anti-censorship laws.
They're not a monopoly in the strictest sense, but they are extremely powerful. People go to Twitter to see what their representatives are saying. Journalists use it almost exclusively to discover what's relevant. Yes, they're a private company, but when a private company reaches a certain level of influence they become a government of sorts, just not one that owns a standing army.
I think you underestimate the power that social media has. The mass 80% doesn't give a fuck about Mastodon or even leave the domains of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Amazon. This isn't the year 2004 - getting anyone to use a shitty knockoff of Twitter or the like is always going to be an uphill battle. It's due to a few things, namely an accumulation of wealth and confluence with the mainstream media apparatus that wants access to that wealth by proxy. Go ahead and make your own competitor to Twitter and report back to us in a year. Don't be surprised when the MSM labels it in a way that scares off the 80-90%.
>I really think people over emphasize the power that social media sites have.
You say, in the midst of a discussion amongst an international userbase on the political ramifications of a policy decision.
Let's be real about this. Social media, when you really look at it, propagates signal that makes remote events local in terms of sphere of influence. Any content can touch anyone, the globe over assuming an internet connection.
Frankly, and I apologize if this is out of turn, but I think you underestimate the power behind choosing what conversations won't take place.
Just look at the big difference that a U.S. Senate Majority leader can have in terms of the realistic chance of something being discussed.
Never, ever, underestimate the power of negation or deprioritization. In fact, it's a little funny, because being in the position to make those decisions at all is really the common definition of power/authority.
This has already been tested in court in the Prager University vs Google, LLC [1] trial and was resolved very quickly. Freedom of speech does not mean another individual has to assist you in publishing or advertising your speech. You are free to shout from a soap box but no one has to provide you that soap box.
I really think people over emphasize the power that social media sites have. They own a lot of eyeball market share but they do not have the power to prevent you from publishing your opinions. Anyone can make their own website, their own Mastadon instance (see Gab if you want proof), their own Peertube instance, a lot of work is done by the open source community to make it easy to publish content not reliant on large corporations.