3 ms·

but is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? Legally, of course not, because as has been pointed out very clear

but is there something that prevents a company from infringing on your right to free speech? Legally, of course not, because as has been pointed out very clearly in this thread, "freedom of speech" != "the first amendment" You don't have an inherent right to publish messages on twitter.com, correct? Maybe we should do something about that. Large social networks like Twitter, Facebook, etc. are very powerful in that they control a huge amount of public discourse. We live online nowadays. IMO, they should either drop the pretense and assume editorial control (and be held responsible for the words of every single user), or remain hands off and do what the law requires, rather than this wishy-washy stack of double standards.

r_smart 10y ago
I don't want to derail you too much, but I'd argue that Twitter should just be open about what editorial decisions they've made (they don't have to justify it if they don't want). Then people can decide whether they like it or not. People just need a means of evaluating the implicit bias of the organization as you can do by looking at the content of a newspaper. When things just disappear without the reader having a way of knowing, that's when it becomes a problem, to me anyway. Granted, things just disappearing is a problem with newspapers these days too (at least online).
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That's actually a much better idea on reflection. The sneakiness and pretension of Twitter bothers me a lot more than the individual actions they're taking. ...With the one exception of what we're talking about here. Banning political commentators for words that are barely offensive while doing nothing about terrorist propaganda is reprehensible
jjnoakes 10y ago
> IMO, they should either drop the pretense and assume editorial control (and be held responsible for the words of every single user), or remain hands off and do what the law requires, rather than this wishy-washy stack of double standards. I think this is a false dichotomy.
r_smart 10y ago
I can't reply to your reply, so you get a parallel reply. While I agree banning people for saying barely offensive stuff is reprehensible, I also tend to try to err on the side of 'more freedom'. They can do whatever they want, I would prefer it be open, and we are free to despise them. Not that I have too much of a horse in the race since I've avoided social media from the outset (reddit and now HN managed to get some purchase with me).

r_smart 10y ago

I don't want to derail you too much, but I'd argue that Twitter should just be open about what editorial decisions they've made (they don't have to justify it if they don't want). Then people can decide whether they like it or not. People just need a means of evaluating the implicit bias of the organization as you can do by looking at the content of a newspaper. When things just disappear without the reader having a way of knowing, that's when it becomes a problem, to me anyway. Granted, things just disappearing is a problem with newspapers these days too (at least online).

Karunamon 10y ago
That's actually a much better idea on reflection. The sneakiness and pretension of Twitter bothers me a lot more than the individual actions they're taking. ...With the one exception of what we're talking about here. Banning political commentators for words that are barely offensive while doing nothing about terrorist propaganda is reprehensible

jjnoakes 10y ago

> IMO, they should either drop the pretense and assume editorial control (and be held responsible for the words of every single user), or remain hands off and do what the law requires, rather than this wishy-washy stack of double standards. I think this is a false dichotomy.

r_smart 10y ago

I can't reply to your reply, so you get a parallel reply. While I agree banning people for saying barely offensive stuff is reprehensible, I also tend to try to err on the side of 'more freedom'. They can do whatever they want, I would prefer it be open, and we are free to despise them. Not that I have too much of a horse in the race since I've avoided social media from the outset (reddit and now HN managed to get some purchase with me).