[quote=@Spoopy Scary]
I think the biggest misunderstanding of the first amendment and a person's right to free speech is that many people forget that it only keeps the government from punishing you, it does not protect you from criticism or punishment from your neighbor, employer, host, etc. as long as they adhere to other laws. An employer or social media host may reserve the right to fire you or kick you off their website, but the moment someone lays their hands on you, you can try them for assault. But you can't be tried for how you express yourself unless it's slander, hate speech, and so on. A good way of looking at it is "your rights end when another person's begins".

Whether I agree with it or not, Twitter is within their rights to do as they please with their platform. The ability to post through Twitter's services is a privilege.

Similar to this topic is a topic I heard on NPR. Should the president be able to block people on Twitter? Is it a form of censorship to shut down people's voices and ability to be heard?
[/quote]

Different line of topic entirely, I one hundred percent agree with the notion a company has the right to operate they want to operate within the realm of the law. 

However, from a personal perspective, using vaguely worded 'hate speech' and 'harassment' guidelines as a shield to delete users who are generally providing a different viewpoint from the mainstream to be highly detestable. The problem with Twitter or any other platform banning users for 'hate speech' and 'harassment' is that those words most likely mean different things to different people. So, if you ban someone, you are taking a side.

If you don't ban, the other side may claim you're taking the other side. But, if you don't ban [u]any[/u] person regardless of their opinion; you are, in fact, being neutral.

Let's also not forget that ad sponsorship is being [u]selectively[/u] pulled from people who espouse 'unfavorable' content no matter the degree of actual, provable 'hate' on YouTube and therefore makes it difficult for them to continue creating their content. This practice should be frowned upon, and I wonder if it should be illegal.