> You don’t seem able to think of a case that censors showed a clear benefit to society — but there’s several in the past few years where they haven’t:

Not under the rules you specified, no. I'm not a scholar of newspaper history.

After 1900, I can invoke the history of the FCC. By regulating access to the finite resource of bandwidth, they created an interesting circumstance: what you could say on television was regulated because your license could be revoked for failure to uphold a standard that protected the American living room. And for a long, long time: it worked! It worked quite well. There was a broad variety of television and radio available, it was broadly inoffensive, It generally reported the truth and / or was entertaining, and it had a certain national cohesion promotion effect that we've utterly lost in this era of unregulated mass communication. Speaking of, those regulations began to be undermined in the Reagan era, which is when Saturday morning cartoons became feature length commercials for toys. It's hard for me to claim that's an improvement over the previous regulations.

Could you get everything? Not from television. And that was fine. If somebody wanted to broadcast a message, they either needed a sympathetic ear in the media or they needed to own a station.

And that's the key thing, because when you use the term censorship, you're not talking about censorship. You've been consistently talking about who has control over broadcast. You've been consistently calling a private company's decision to not rebroadcast a signal sent to them "censorship" as if we should have any right to the resources of a private corporation. If anything, Twitter looks like a broadcast channel sitting on a non-finite resource. Since the resource is not finite, the government lacks the interest in regulating who uses it that it had for airwaves, which is fine. But those who demand some sort of fairness in how it chooses what it retransmits are asking for a massive prior restraint on its freedom to do with its service what it will that has no precedent. And the precedent it sets opens a huge can of worms.

If some government authority can mandate Twitter has to discuss flat earth, can they also mandate it has to give a platform to Nazis? That'll be incompatible with the law of several countries, for starters. It's also broadly incompatible with the American tradition of the press. You can't force NBC to platform Nazis. You can't force the New York times to give Nazis column inches. What the (US) government is restrained from doing is shutting down the Nazi newspaper and preventing the Nazi candidate from applying to the ballot using the same rules that every candidate does. Nowhere does the law require us to allow them to use our resources to promote their message. Not even a billboard operator is required to do business with them, no matter how green their money is... The law just prevents the government from restraining them from setting up their own billboard under the general rules of billboards.

Twitter belongs to Twitter and none of us have the right to force it to retransmit any damn thing we say. Their pipes, their storage, their servers, their rules. We should host a blog if we don't like it.