YEP: Beloved David Frum: The complaint seems to be that this platform under previous management was not hospitable enough to antivaxxers, Russian military intelligence, and Pepe the frog.

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1607403837844856833

The complaint seems to be that this platform under previous management was not hospitable enough to antivaxxers, Russian military intelligence, and Pepe the frog.

 "If they can do it to the GRU, they can do it to the snake oil salesmen."

Meanwhile, new management has suspended journalists for reporting doubts about Tesla's growth prospects.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-suspends-insiders-linette-lopez-another-reporter-who-pissed-him-off

I also don't have a good answer to the question, "what should a social media corporation not bound by the First Amendment do about hostile foreign intelligence operations? Or about spreaders of quack science?" But people who shrug off the problems are offering a worse answer

Social media seems to me generally a force for good. But no good is unalloyed. Part of the price we have paid for access to social media has been the return of preventable diseases like measles and polio.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/12/26/vaccine-hesitancy-measles-chickenpox-polio-flu/

Conscientious management of a social media company not bound by the First Amendment would, in my opinion, take seriously the problem: "How do we reduce the abuse of our product by crooks and quacks whose medical misinformation can spread sickness and death?"

Polio's back.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/04/how-polio-silently-spread-in-new-york-and-left-a-person-paralyzed.html

The First Amendment does not compel a private company to give a platform to the pro-measles lobby. 

The First Amendment protects a private company's right to refuse a platform to the pro-measles lobby.

Should be possible to hold in mind the paired thoughts: 

1) Crooks and cranks have the same constitutional rights as everybody else; 

2) Reputable companies try to protect their brands from being hijacked by crooks and cranks.

Anyway, what's going on at Twitter now is the replacement of often clumsy rules with hasty after-the-fact rationalizations for banning whoever most recently pissed off the owner.

"Absolute free speech except for tweeting publicly available information on private planes." 

"Absolute free speech except for reporting negative news about Tesla." 

"Absolute free speech except for Taylor Lorenz, she really pisses off the company's new core users."