8 ms·
hmmm.... It certainly has nothing to do with the first amendment protections since twitter is a private company, but - at least from my POV - it does have to do
by elgabogringo 10y ago
hmmm.... It certainly has nothing to do with the first amendment protections since twitter is a private company, but - at least from my POV - it does have to do with censorship, bias, and, depending on how you define it, free speech.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- smt88 10y agoYes! It absolutely is censorship and bias. I agree with that. But private corporations are allowed to censor and be biased. That's why a bar can kick you out for screaming racial slurs if they want to: it hurts their business by making their customers unhappy. That's also why corporations can donate to any political cause that they want. Some private corporations exist only to be biased! The ACLU is an example. "Free speech" means, to me, the freedom to speak without fear. Twitter has not given Yiannopoulos a reason to fear speaking. He's just no longer free to use Twitter as a broadcast medium. It's like if Twitter lent him a huge megaphone that said "TWITTER" on it, listened to what he said, and then decided they didn't want him to have it anymore.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoIs it really censorship if they're only "targeting" people who happen to be rude to other users? Or personalities who encourage their followers to do so enmass. The only difference between Twitter and old school BBSes in this case is reach. You still need to break out the ban hammer sometimes or it turns into a cesspool.
- DrFunke 10y agoI’d like to posit this scenario to everyone, and hear your responses: A privately-held telecom provider (i.e. utility) disagrees with my political views. As a result my internet service is terminated. Let's agree the definition of a public utility is "Furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large". Has the provider restricted my First Amendment right? At what point (if ever) would you consider Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter public utilities?
- smt88 10y agoIt doesn't make sense as an analogy to this situation. Public utilities are usually public (at least in the US) because they need to be monopolies. You can't have 10 companies running competing power lines throughout a city, so you have one. Because you only have one, it gets heavily regulated to ensure fairness. The same is true of broadcast frequencies.
- DrFunke 10y agoPublic utilities more commonly exist as oligopolies–not dissimilar to the social media market, in which the number of (major, national) firms can be counted on one hand.
- croon 10y agoThe difference is that where you live you can't choose another utility provider, so they are in a way localized monopolies. On the internet you can choose whatever service you like.
- croon 10y agoIn your scenario: Yes. Is Twitter or any other application layer non-government service on the internet a utility? No. So is this what happened? No. They didn't ban him for his political views, nor are they a utility.
- mieses 10y agoThey did ban him for his political views. But it's clever how you snuck in that one subjective statement into an otherwise objective line of reasoning.
- st3v3r 10y agoThey did not ban him for his political views. They banned him for impersonating tweets of another user, and for leading a harassment campaign against other users. Nothing to do with his political views.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> It certainly has nothing to do with the first amendment protections since twitter is a private company I disagree. Because Twitter is a private company (and not a public utility), their being able to make this kind of decision is central to what the first amendment is about. > it does have to do with censorship Of course it has to do with censorship. Anytime a someone who owns an outlet chooses to allow or not allow their private channel to be used in a particular way, it has to do with censorship.