If you really cared about preserving your right to freedom of speech, you'd have your own website. You check your rights at the door the second you log in to a platform you don't own or control.
Twitter isn't a government agency, but a private corporation protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They have the right to reject any content you contribute without being liable for any user-generated content they publish.
That means they don't owe you a platform. Likewise, you owe them nothing, so why tolerate Twitter's continued existence? Just open up /etc/hosts and set twitter.com's IP to "0.0.0.0". Problem solved.
That's still requiring someone to host you (assuming your not self serving), your ISP to connect to you, and your DNS to continue directing people to you. You're always reliant on someone else's platform to keep you afloat on the internet.
I know, and I think some of that could be eliminated if ISPs were required by law to allow people to self-host Web and gopher sites (and properly secured SMTP) on residential connections and do a full IPV6 rollout so that you can have your server directly accessible without NAT if you want. Then you can just give out your IPV6 address if domain registrars refuse to serve you because they find your site's contents objectionable.
We should be smacking around ISPs anyway, just to remind them that as limited-liability corporations with government-issued charters they exist in their current form on public sufferance and must remember their place while they still have one. We the people are sovereign and have the right to demand that the officials we elect to govern on our behalf regulate corporations to serve the public good instead of pursuing shareholder value uber alles.
This being the case, I don't see any reason why ISPs be permitted to say that individuals should not be allowed to run internet-accessible websites or gopher holes out of their homes. I think enacting reasonable legislation to force ISPs to allow residential customers to use their service to publish content as well as consume it will create a richer and more robust internet.
Now, if you still find the notion of forcing corporations to do things objectionable, it might help to remember that corporations are not human beings. They have no inherent rights, only powers defined by law. They are like governments in that regard.
You have the right to run a business and work for a profit. You do not have the right to do so from behind the aegis of a LLC. That is a privilege.
A company is located in a physical place and has to follow the laws in that place.
I am 100% sure that if youtube started to reject all content from Muslims then they would get hit by a discrimination law suit and end up in court over it. The argument would be that google, youtube server, or the user is located in a physical place with anti-discrimination laws, and based on that users has rights.
As I mentioned earlier, my understanding is that as a corporation based in the US, Twitter is governed in part by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act of 1996[1], which consists of the following:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
How a conflict between Section 230 and hypothetical anti-discrimination laws barring a social networking from imposing a blanket ban on right-wing content should be adjudicated is way above my pay grade since I'm not a judge, let alone a lawyer.
To give an example of how the law sometimes work, Sweden has a similar law to section 230 called "The law regarding electronic billboards", which gives the provider legal space to operate as a intermediate without legal liability in regard to the message. During the Pirate Bay trial the founders argue that this gave them protection.
The prosecutor and later the court judgment cited a different law, one which was created in order to give the police the power to seize biker bars from organized crime. They argued that the website, just like a biker bar, allowed for "primarily" illegal activity and thus made the founder liable for operating it and gives the police the power to seize it in order to stop further crime.
Even if twitter, google or any other private operated website is not treated as the publisher or speaker, the operators can still be charged under any law that do not distinguish on the accused being the publisher or speaker.
Twitter isn't a government agency, but a private corporation protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They have the right to reject any content you contribute without being liable for any user-generated content they publish.
That means they don't owe you a platform. Likewise, you owe them nothing, so why tolerate Twitter's continued existence? Just open up /etc/hosts and set twitter.com's IP to "0.0.0.0". Problem solved.