Not really though. If you go through a list of banned people on Twitter (
Wikipedia), they're not just people who happen to have right wing views. They're often specifically members of the alt-right. That is not a coincidence, since it's a movement with a history of orchestrating targeted abuse and harassment of individuals. As far as I can tell, every banned supporter of that movement has been banned for exactly that reason.
I didn't mention anything about people being banned from twitter specifically.
What i high-lighted was Twitter (and their employees) having the capability to employ
shadow-banning techniques. This is where certain peoples content is downgraded within the system so it doesn't turn up in searches or appear on other people's feeds. It was admitted by Twitter software engineers the majority of its use was targetted towards conservatives & Trump supporters.
Also who (and by what authority) gets to decide if some-one is Alt-Right. Do you not see a problem where if someone (like an employee from Twitter) disagrees with a person views they could label them 'Alt-Right' and have their content removed. You also get the problem where people start relying on companies like the Southern Poverty Law Center to discern for them who should be considered 'extremists' or 'hate groups'. Only the other week they published an article which labeled Tim Pool (freelance left leaning journalist) as Alt Right, on the basis that he had associated with/interviewed people from the far right. If you don't see the potential for bias & abuse then fine, but i see it as a form of censorship & de-platforming.
As for the Twitter verified thing, well Katie Hopkins is still verified, but David Duke isn't. Ann Coulter is still verified, but Tommy Robinson isn't. It seems like you can post your racist views, but as soon as you start organising far-right rallies, that seems to be the point that Twitter don't want to verify your account any more. The main reason this happened in the first place was because the person who organised that Charlottesville rally in which people were killed by white nationalists had Twitter-verified status. They're trying to get away from the idea that Twitter actually endorses the people with a blue tick. Ironically, they may have made things worse, because if they're willing to de-verify certain people, then it suggests that those that remain meet some sort of requirements.
Maybe i misunderstand what the whole verification is about, but i was under the impression that it was so known people in public eye could verify who they were, so they that other people couldn't masquerade as them using similiar names & profiles to cause mischief & problems. What it now seems to have turned into is a 'badge' for views & opinions that are endorsed by Twitter, and not about proving identities.
You might not have a problem with this, but my view is that social media should be neutral, and not show bias or favouritism to any side.
My original point still stands, and that was it seems people (on both sides), as long as they are getting the results or outcomes they desire, aren't really interested in the methods used. The methods, lack of a level playing field etc only become an issue when they become affected.
