And if history is any guide, regulation will make things worse.

You got that right Brother. Their failure to regulate themselves is unacceptable though. They took public funds. We allowed their monopoly. They have become the de facto public square and are trying to make an end run around the Bill of Rights. Since they refuse to play nice or even acknowledge their bias, what other choice is there?

Yeah, I just got done listening to that. And especially the lady kept falling into the trap I list above. She kept whining, "Well, we just need to do a better job of explaining why we banned so and so."
What was pointed out but never sunk in was, "No. You need to admit that you banned so and so, and didn't ban his liberal cousin." It is not the ban, nor the non-ban, it is the combination of ban plus non-ban.
Then they speak of their algorithms. Well, algorithms can be as fair as you like... but if you write them to prioritize one thing over another, that's what they will do. Consistently and 'fairly'.

@VonO I think her denial that they have any bias was quite arrogant. Everyone has bias, even if you're trying not to be, so don't just flat out deny that... just say you're trying your best to be objective but admit biased censorship is possible. That seemed to be too hard to admit.

There's probably nothing about the left that if more galling than how they so often say and do things that are overtly political, and then act as if that wasn't what they were doing. At least people like Ben Shapiro admit they're political pundits.

@jnaatjes I think it was quite deceptive. I think she has bias, and knows it. And likes it. I think she is merely doing all she can to keep conservatives and libertarians dumb sheep who keep her gravy train coming. Listen for when she says, "I don't even know what that means." Really? You had all that time to research misgendering and dead naming, but you can't even listen to Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro for a couple of hours to see what the other half believes and why they know you are biased?? Really??

I see the good intentions behind what they're trying to do... they're trying to police harassment and keep people safe from physical harm.

But their standard isn't defined enough. For instance, I agree you shouldn't be going out of your way to target a trans person to repeatedly "dead name" or "misgender" them. But if you're having a debate with a trans person about the validity of transgenderism, and if the're argument is that they, themselves, used to be a man but now they're a woman, and you say, no, you're still a man... that is not harassment! That's a debate and Twitter just decided who gets to win that debate by shutting down one side.