How satisfactory evidence of collusion would look like? A dump of internal emails where executives discussing censorship strategies? Transcripts of private conversations? Even if I were to somewhow provide such evidence, then still it would be too easy for you to dismiss it as few bad apples or exceptional circumstances or misguided actions of a few overzealous players. To me, it is very clear that Rhaikh is asking for impossible to meet standard of proof.

I can never meet such standard of proof, as it designed to be unmet, however I can share how I reached my conclusions. I listened to what conservatives have to say, first skeptically and then with the realization that they are largely justified when complaining about social media. Constant shadowbans, demonetization, suspensions are commonplace for anything outside what I call California-Left political thought. You don't encounter this in any form if you are vanilla semi-woke Left. I started seeing this when I took interest in critiques of third-wave feminism. Anyone daring to speak up against orthodoxy in this area is immediately find themselves under constant siege of harassment that is unchecked, and any even marginal transgression is heavyhandedly and disproportionately punished. I can interpolate that this happens to most conservative ideas, and not just to opponents of feminism. It got so ridiculous, and so eat-your-own, that a prominent feminist was recently banned from Twitter for making "men aren't women" post with a stated justification that such statement is transphobic.

Now, your standard for being censored (i.e. "have no (as in zero, empty set) legitimate alternative outlets") is outright farcical. Applying your standard, banning anyone voicing support for Trump from FB, Twitter, WhatsApp, Youtube would not constitute censorship, because they still could write letters to the congress. A more objective standard would be "there are substantial impediments to speech of groups of people that adhere to certain ideology".

Last but not least, your warped understanding of free speech, where you see censorship by social media corporations as exercise of their speech is offensive perversion of the idea. It is fruit of the same poisoned tree that brought us Citizens United v. FEC. It is absurd to think that corporations have rights of that kind, and it is offensive to consider that application of such rights can impede rights of actual humans. To put it bluntly - Twitter's ability to censor political views is not a right, while actual living human's ability to express political views on Twitter is.

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, solution to this is very similar to what we already do. Just like it is illegal for a public bakery to refuse to serve cake to a homsexual couple, it should be illegal for Twitter to refuse to serve twits to conservatives they find deplorable.

[Linked Image]