Wait wait wait, a mosque isn't an individual. What people want Twitter to do is prevent certain individual users from pointing objectionable content at other us

Wait wait wait, a mosque isn't an individual. What people want Twitter to do is prevent certain individual users from pointing objectionable content at other users; based on those certain users patterns of behavior. So, Uber not picking up a certain cleric because they're known to bite their thumbs at drivers. Maybe a better analogy is a restaurant patron sitting in their own both, but yelling across the room at other patrons. If you own the restaurant, you'd consider silencing them or booting them so they wouldn't detract from the other customer's experiences. (Or maybe I just like analogies.) The complaint I hear from Twitter users isn't that people are broadcasting things they disagree with, it's that Twitter makes it to easy for people to broadcast directly at a specific person. Bearing in mind that anyone has the opportunity to leave the platform if they don't enjoy it. When I was in college I wouldn't have tried to prevent my institution from letting (for example) Milo, speak, I just wouldn't have gone to see him. But if my university let him show up in my dorm room, or gave him my cell phone number, or required me to attend his talk - I'd have had an issue. To be clear, the idea of Twitter being an entirely open broadcast platform has merit, and maybe it would be a better strategy (I assume that's sort of what Gab is trying to be?), but I think the people who say Twitter would be more successful if it pushed back harder on patterns of perceived harassment have a valid point too. I suspect any platform that opens the door too wide to one user bothering another is going to suffer in acquisition, retention, and referral - not a great start to any path to revenue.