Let’s say you’re some dude on Twitter and you post something that really hits a nerve with someone, so they come back at you and call you a loser or another ridiculous name just for voicing your view. You come back at them and call them a bigger loser because that’s apparently the way we deal with people nowadays. Now both of you are upset and you each want the other banned, blocked, or otherwise inhibited from saying what they want to say, but you both still want to spew your own garbage and now start claiming you have a constitutional right to do so. A couple questions arise.

Do you have a constitutional right to say whatever offensive trash you want?

Yes, you do. There are statues in place that ensure incitement and conspiracy to commit a crime aren’t protected, but when it comes to speech that’s just offensive, go ahead and say it. The consequences are social, not legal. Most people who spew their trash and expect to be heard, don’t realize this, though, and are surprised and hurt when faced with the social consequences. Those consequences can include damage to your reputation, loss of a job, or expulsion from groups or forums. There’s a difference between your constitutional right to speak and your non-existent right to be heard. Similarly, if you patronize a business and don’t like what they or their other customers have to say, you have no grounds to stop them from saying it, only a good reason to cease patronizing their business. In other words, you have no right to not hear what other people have to say, especially in privately owned forums.

As it pertains to this example, if other people don’t like what you say on Twitter and now you’re paying the price, tough. If you don’t like what other people are saying on Twitter but you refuse to stop using it, tough. If you don’t like how Twitter is handling the situation, tough. The solution to all of these is to get off Twitter. Which brings us to the next question.

What should Twitter Do?

Twitter, being it’s own, non-governmental organization, can pretty much do what it wants. It can ban both of you, neither of you, play favorites, or a plethora of other things. What it should do though is what maximizes its profit. Twitter’s only interest should be itself, and if one course of action helps it gain users or make more money, it should follow that course of action. The best check on the morality of corporations is money. If people don’t like a company, they will not buy from them. The pursuit of money incentivises companies to resolve issues in a way that provides a suitable outcome to the maximum amount of users. If banning everyone who likes the color green maximizes profit, Twitter should do that. Market forces will adjust and create and adequate solution for those who are not satisfied and those who are satisfied have had their problems solved. For this to work in favor of both society and companies, one other organization must work in concert with society.

What should the government do?

Governments should work to tear down market barriers. When the cost to enter a market is low, companies are not able to take advantage of a lack of competitors to pressure users to stay. When few options exist, customers are compelled to stick with a single company because they lack an adequate alternative. The internet is a relatively free forum, which allows consumers to switch back and forth easily between websites or applications when their needs are not met. It must remain so or otherwise risk the degradation of free speech.

Here’s an example of how these solutions all work together.

LouderWithCrowder is an example of an organization that encountered a scenario similar to the one above. LouderWithCrowder is a far right politcal talk/comedy show that offended many people. In response to many of their customers dislike of the show, YouTube took an action it thought would maximize their profit and restricted and demonetized many of the LouderWithCrowder videos. LouderWithCrowder in turn felt their needs were not met by YouTube and instead moved to their own site, and now only uses YouTube in a more limited capacity. They were able to do so because the cost to create an online business is low enough that they could do it without much capital.

This is one example from the right, but regardless of political affiliation or viewpoint, anyone who’s needs are not met can change their forum at a relatively low cost. Additionally, this concept doesn’t just apply to Twitter or YouTube. Replace those companies with the name of any media company and you’ll reach the same conclusions: Consumers should switch forums if they’re dissatisfied, providers should maximize profit, and the government should maintain low entry barriers.