[in the us] porn involving adults is protected speech, unless it falls into obscenity category or other nuance like invasion of privacy. I don't agree with that visual porn is speech, and I don't have to personally, but it is what it is. As far as Jack dorsey saying access to social media is a human right, it doesn't make him liable in the us or in the international courts. Loomer is correct to mock Dorsey as a human rights violator using his own arguments against him. Dorsey, in his rationale, probably is making his social network accessible to SJWs by prohibiting any speakers that might upset his cult of fragile snowflakes. There also is no monopoly in social media in general; you evince that by saying twitter, facebook, and youtube....and here we are on steemit or clone thereof. Although Facebook has engaged in activity that clearly tends to stifle competition (snapchat, pinterest, likely others), antitrust is outside my focus. Since you essentially brought up 47 u.s.c 230, the congress has immunized companies like twitter and facebook when they block what they deem to be objectionable material.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Simply because the giants have taken sides doesn't transform them into a publisher, that is exactly the kind of power the congress wanted them to have, To argue that they become a publisher, could effectively shut down not just say a christian social network or phpbb site, but could shut down interactive family oriented video games as well. Imagine if writing a filter that blocks an ad where a bot repeats, "buy game gold at [website]" over and over again makes the provider suddenly a publisher, where the company then loses all immunity for any users based in game banter. it would send a chill down that would scare any venture capitalist, any IT owner, and web developer. Yelp and more online rating systems could disappear if it tried to block abusive or fake reviews, else face liability for libel, negligence, or other tort(s).
If you don't like what the giants are getting away with with their banhammer, then build your own site. But even after it is built, you will see far more obstacles than you foresaw. Marketing is a big step, and ensure that before launch, that the network can grow without having to radically alter the code for a new network topography while dealing with irate clients. If you use a host provider, you'll quickly see there is a limit on the number of files you can have on their unlimited space sever, and you may run into a maximum queries per hour limit fast.
RE: Should We Ban Incitement to Violence?