3 ms·

I don't believe repeating this viewpoint is useful. It is a kneejerk reaction that in my opinion fails to take the actual situation into account. This wasn't a

I don't believe repeating this viewpoint is useful. It is a kneejerk reaction that in my opinion fails to take the actual situation into account. This wasn't a service monitoring everyone, this was a service monitoring elected officials, whose statements, whatever they are, are part of the public record. This is especially important as particularly politicians derive a lot of their power from what they say (and often promise) to their constituents, regardless of whether they actually stick to what they say or not.

girvo 11y ago
While I personally feel that Twitter taking down this service is a shame, and yet another sign of how reliance on these private companies for expression of free speech is never going to work, tptacek is right. When it comes down to it, Twitter as a private company is completely allowed to do this, and in fact it is in their interest to do so; these services harm Twitter as a whole, despite being (in my opinion) a net good for society. Of course Twitter would act in it's own interests here.
- themartorana 11y ago
  There's a lot that is legal that is morally reprehensible. Like bringing the world to the brink of financial collapse and then having governments bail out the institutions responsible while absolutely no one went to jail for the crime. Sure Twitter is allowed to do this. It has nothing to do with whether the attempt to alter (or delete) history is morally reprehensible or not.
argonaut 11y ago
Calling someone else's viepoint not useful is itself counterproductive and not useful. Twitter doesn't in of itself owe anything to the public interest. It's a company; it needs to make money. It isn't funded by the government.
- eropple 11y ago
  > Twitter doesn't in of itself owe anything to the public interest. Twitter exists at the sufferance of the society that grants it its corporate charter. It most certainly does owe a great deal to the public interest--or it would, in a healthy society, be penalized, up to and including destruction of its convenient legal fiction, for acting against it.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    Oh, so that's your political opinion. I was wondering.

girvo 11y ago

While I personally feel that Twitter taking down this service is a shame, and yet another sign of how reliance on these private companies for expression of free speech is never going to work, tptacek is right. When it comes down to it, Twitter as a private company is completely allowed to do this, and in fact it is in their interest to do so; these services harm Twitter as a whole, despite being (in my opinion) a net good for society. Of course Twitter would act in it's own interests here.

themartorana 11y ago
There's a lot that is legal that is morally reprehensible. Like bringing the world to the brink of financial collapse and then having governments bail out the institutions responsible while absolutely no one went to jail for the crime. Sure Twitter is allowed to do this. It has nothing to do with whether the attempt to alter (or delete) history is morally reprehensible or not.

argonaut 11y ago

Calling someone else's viepoint not useful is itself counterproductive and not useful. Twitter doesn't in of itself owe anything to the public interest. It's a company; it needs to make money. It isn't funded by the government.

eropple 11y ago
> Twitter doesn't in of itself owe anything to the public interest. Twitter exists at the sufferance of the society that grants it its corporate charter. It most certainly does owe a great deal to the public interest--or it would, in a healthy society, be penalized, up to and including destruction of its convenient legal fiction, for acting against it.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Oh, so that's your political opinion. I was wondering.