Moderating a forum versus dumping toxic waste is one hell of a comparison dude.

Anyway, I don't think I stand up for companies abnormally, I think most people like to pretend they're the source of most problems and I just don't agree. Usually the consumer is the boss, if they didn't support companies then those companies would not exist. If Twitter's moderation was actually bothersome to most people, Twitter would plummet in popularity. Think of it like Steam... everyone here complains about the DRM, but 90% of consumers don't care, so Steam is successful anyway. Is that Valve's fault or the consumer's fault? I know which I would answer.

I am a proud capitalist though. I believe in regulations obviously, a "Democrat" I guess, but capitalism is by far the best option we've got in a sea of flawed options. So if you're coming at it from that direction we're pretty far off.

I was just using that as the more extreme end of corporate freedom, to ask how far you would support corporate freedoms.

Sure, they aren't all bad to the same degrees and some are quite decent, but they're not all saints either....like those who pollute, take advantage of sweatshop labor, etc.

Also what I meant is that you seem(ed) to stand up for corporate freedoms for some companies who've done some not so nice things.....i'm sorry if I assumed incorrectly, btw.

It would likely do just that if people could make more alternate sites, but such companies often take steps to prevent such from being easy to do(like get their more loyal users to smear the new competition).

As for dropping in popularity...funny you should bring that up: There a new alternate site that's taking a good amount of users who abhor twitter's near draconian speech policies.

(Now whether or not it keeps growing is anyone's guess...but I hope it does, as that site could use the competition)

It's the consumer's fault to some degree, but imo also somewhat valve's as well....it "takes two to tango", as it were.

I don't believe I was.

Yes, and that's the way to fight it. Promote the hell out of that alternative if you want, switch over and never look at Twitter again. If enough people agree with you, they'll switch too and Twitter will be severely impacted, like MySpace, LiveJournal or Tumblr back in the day. None of these companies are immortal.

That's much, much, easier said than done. Even if you're allowed to share a competitors existence, many could be "trapped" in the current one by either some shady practices like likes and followers, or by family/corporate connections.

The thing I thought weighed most heavily in GamesRater's post was "It takes two to tango".
People should be more aware of actions and consequences, and take responsibility while acting with forethought in mind, but we both know that is highly unlikely. If that was all it took, we wouldn't require a government passing laws.
The two in the tango should be people and governments to me, keeping a check on corporations.
Through education (teaching logic, critical thought, short and long-term actions-consequences, etc) and passing laws.
Capitalism is a good societal layer for distributing resources and money around, but unchecked it can be as equally damaging as the rest of the options.

^This. People are where their friends, peers, family and co-workers are. I don't like Facebook, but there is literally no alternative if I want to talk to some people I know. And they are there because their circles are there...

I'm resisting to use WhatsApp though, which is also met with incomprehension really often: "But everybody has it!". Well obviously not.
And when I'm telling them they can use Wire or Telegram or make another suggestion: "I'm not installing another app! I don't have the space!!", but installing the next ad-infested, data-thieving bullshit app because a friend has it too, no questions asked...

Haha... likes and followers don't "trap" you anywhere man, and if they did that's the consumer's fault anyway. All these sites use the same stuff, and again they still fail. If you really cared you would leave and point your followers to your new home and take the hit. Twitter does not prevent you from mentioning Parler, I've seen it happen a bunch of times.

Obviously taking down a titan isn't easy though, no. However what's the alternative? The government telling private businesses what to let people post? Fuck that, it's a way worse outcome than anything you think is happening now. Also, to be blunt, you guys need to accept that Twitter wasn't impacted by banning Alex Jones because the vast, vast majority of people just don't give a shit about Alex Jones or agree with your crusades. Maybe if people don't want to leave their popular service for your niche service it's because they're happy not doing so, eh?

Anyway, this argument isn't going anywhere in our tribal times, so I'll leave it at that.

They would support the contract and rights being upheld properly and action taken against these companies each time they have abused their position. They would also recognise other monopolies propping them up. They already are indirectly and it's is more than your own government. Where's your free market there?
It seems you would prefer a corporate or fascist dictatorship instead. :p

If it means more can be said than less on sites like say gaming forums(like steam's and such), i'd be all for it. If it meant less could be said, then I wouldn't be for it.