i like to think like this freedom of speech in NH: good, as they ban what i dont like freedom of speech in US: bad, as they ban what i like

I completely agree. Upset bigots don’t understand “freedom of speech” refers solely to legality and government prosecution. Private enterprises and social media platforms are independent from such things, and require users to sign terms of service which often place restrictions on speech upon their platforms.

so youre allowed to break basic human rights if you make a profit from it ???????????

While it’s fundamentally right that companies like Twitter have the right to choose who they allow to use their platform, there is a point to be made that in the current day and age, social media has taken the place that was once occupied by the streets and marketplaces, in that they are the main place where people state and discuss their beliefs. Thus you could support the argument that social media services should be forced by law to allow all discussions that could be legally made on a town square too. But I’ve not yet made up my mind about this issue

wait till you realize the intelligence agencies actually funded the major social media companies in the USA. so there isn't this separation of state and private business that you think there is.

What about cases where people just beat you up for having a different opinion? I personally don't give a fuck about Meta, Twitter, etc. because they are indeed private companies who can serve whoever they want. Don't like the Meta/Twitter folks? Head over to Truth or whatever lol

The problem is not that Twitter or Facebook allow you or not to express your opinions on the plateforms, it's that all of them are from the same cartel in the Silicon Valley. There is a monopoly on the internet.

Freedom of speech the biggest myth.

Freedom isnt the most important thing, if you demand total freedom at the age of 15 its normal but if you are older than 20 and you cry about muh freedom you are either a nazi/communist trying to hide your true intentions or you are actually severely mentally retarded. A functioning state consists of laws and people that follow them. If you want an anarchist society go to Congo and get killed by some random guy with a rifle.

Twitter is by nature a public forum, so there's no reason for the concept of free speech to not apply there. You can argue that since it's a private company it does not legally need to support free speech, but to say that their censorship is not against free speech is an incredibly dumb take. And even if you argue that, it's missing the point, because laws can always be changed. Twitter the private company does not need to provide a forum for people to discuss things, if they don't want to. If they do, they'll have to conduct their business within the limitations of legislation, just as they would have to with any other business venture. There's no reason why freedom of speech should not be protected by the government in any and every form. The only possible reason is that the government itself is against free speech. Therefore any censorship of public speech that the government allows to happen for whatever reason, must also align with the government's wishes for what speech should be censored. tl;dr: If these private companies started to editorialize and censor stuff to undermine the government, it would take 2 weeks tops until their private company no longer had this god-given right to do whatever they want on their private platform.

The argument is that social media is the new "town square" where people converse. Much more conversation happens on social media now than IRL, which is probably a bad thing, but nonetheless obviously when creating the concept of "freedom of speech" they could never have foreseen something like social media. The concept should still apply to twitter and all social media as if it gets censored its the same effect as IRL censorship

bump