Censorship causes its own issues, but we don't like to talk about that and who has the power to make those decisions and why they are making those decisions. Censorship can lead to backlashes and mistrust. It can lead to fundamental injustice and large scale scandals in which people are harmed and those in power or positions of responsibility are protected. There are also issues with governments trying to impose censorship, and how this might impact on other countries with different laws.
There is an overall need for transparency and discussion of this. We are lacking in this.
We need to accept a few fundamental things as part of this:
a) international cooperation
b) an understanding of conflicts between law enforcement and freedom of speech (should someone in India be free to say something thhe government dislikes if its whistleblowing government corruption? Does this fall under our more traditional understanding of protecting journalists which are protected in the UK and US?)
c) how governments might try and use censorship to stop discussion of subjects they don't like OUTSIDE their borders.
d) how poor communication skills and verbalisation, doesn't mean someone doesn't have a fundamental point and if you insist that all arguments are articulate, shiney and polished you tend to restrict debate to certain social classes to the exclusion of others.
e) That it is impossible to fully ban toxicity. It is a task which is unrealistic and impossible to stop someone willing to merely create another dozen accounts, simply because of sheer weight of numbers and time considerations.
f) Efforts should be made in areas where there is the broadest social consensus of wrong doing; call this 'universal ideas' if you will. These should be prioritised. This is where censorship SHOULD be used.
g) The understanding that, policing and censorship does not stop people from having 'bad ideas'. You risk weaponising and amplifying by banning. Barbara Streisand knows this well. Frank Goes To Hollywood know this well. When you ban you need to understand the unintended consequences of doing this.
h) If someone has an unpleasant opinion, they will voice it somewhere. There are so many places they can do this. You risk driving individuals more underground if they fell disenfrashised - this risks exposure to worse stuff. Enforcement is way behind the curve of technology - theres lots to be said for keeping it in sight. Then merely being on other more underground sites raises bigger questions from the off, about intent.
i) The idea that we need Musk's help for enforcement is wrong. Just over a 1000 people have been charged in connection with the riots over the summer. 100 of them have been charged in relation to online content. Question: Why are we blaming Musk for the inactions of the police who haven't tackled a lot of this before, when they clearly do have the ability to? This says something about policing priorities and police resources.
j) Engagement WITH Musk to broach some of these issues and problems in a grown up fashion is helpful.
k) Its arguably not for Musk to resolve public conflicts over differences of opinion. We should be doing this all by ourselves - twitter is not the only place to have conversations - I'd argue that pinch points highlight areas that politicians have failed in, in various ways. Twitter is NOT a public space either. It is a privately owned space.
I could go on.
Its such a complex area.
I generally think censorship should be as light touch as you can, for all these reasons. And shoul only be about criminality which is broadly accepted.
Personally, I don't find twitter a problem. I use it as a read only newsstream. I have a broad spectrum of accounts with different views. I only use the tab to view accounts I follow. I take replies with a pinch of salt. Its not my thing to post on it. Its still useful though.