To be clear, I wasn't defending peoples "rights" to harass others. I was talking about topic censorship. If you use the platform to harass people then yeah, you should probably be cordoned off at a minimum.

There is a difference between harassment and a statement you disagree with, regardless of communication method.

*sometimes

"I think waffles are better than pancakes" is a pretty easy distinction.

"I think slavery should still be legal" - not so much. Is that just a really shitty and ridiculous opinion, or harassment?

It's a shitty opinion.

Law has been around for a very long time and harassment vs speed has been successfully understood and prosecuted for a very long time. If it's a passing comment on a social network then no matter how dispicable it is, it's just a comment. Ignore and block it, and move on with your life.

Right, because only us law applies to companies doing business internationally...

However SMS/email is not comparable to Twitter. One is push, ie you don't have to do anything to receive the unwanted messages. The other is pull, where you explicitly have to search the user's profile or follow them to see the unwanted tweets.

You can see messages from twitter users without subscribing to their feed.

That's not really true, as you can see from GDPR.

See what exactly? GDPR has no prosecution precedent yet and it remains to be seen just what jurisdiction and reach it will really, if ever, provide.

It's well intentioned but international enforcement just isn't that simple.

Twitter has offices in UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Belgium. They are very much under the reach of European legislation, such as GDPR. (Also responding to the GP.)

But parent said that laws from non-home countries are irrelevant, which is factually wrong and not the same as some expected enforcement difficulties.

Unenforceable laws are effectively useless.