>I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems t

>I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of morality in the situation on the other party? > And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a clear violation of the Constitution.