2 ms·

> Your argument is deliberately eschewing this concept of reliance And I believe I am doing that rightfully so. I don't think reliance is relevant. Anyone who

> Your argument is deliberately eschewing this concept of reliance And I believe I am doing that rightfully so. I don't think reliance is relevant. Anyone who relied on twitter did so knowing that twitter can revoke their platform at any time from any user without cause. It's in the TOS. > If this were true, the government controlling what you could say on the Internet wouldn't be an infringement, because you still had other outlets. This is absolutely correct. The only reason the government can not do this is the first amendment. But if that did not exist, then the government somehow stepping in and preventing you from speaking would be just as morally wrong (in my opinion) as twitter somehow stepping in and preventing you from speaking (which I would consider fairly morally wrong, but I don't think this is what twitter is doing). And in the same vein, twitter refusing to broadcast your speech is as morally wrong (in my opinion) as the government refusing to post it on one of their web sites, if they were publishing broadcasted messages of others (which I would not consider morally wrong, assuming the first amendment did not exist). I don't think prevention of free speech by a government should be conflated with refusal to broadcast speech by a commercial entity. If the public wants a forum to share any speech they want to share, they are free to set one up. > In another comment, you allude to your ISP restricting what you can publish online as wrong. How exactly does this differ from Twitter, besides being a different OSI layer? I didn't say I thought an ISP removing my connection is wrong, I said I thought twitter petitioning them to do so because twitter disagreed with my speech and wanted it removed from places twitter does not control is wrong.

mindslight 10y ago
I give up. You will be able to find a "logical" deduction to seemingly justify anything, because our memepool is full of contradictions and you are running the complexity generator forward. This is exactly what the government and corporations do (using the court system) to chip away our rights as they coalesce their centralized singular power. Obviously Twitter wants to be a petty dictator and disclaim any implied responsibility (eg their generally-unread TOS) - that doesn't mean you need to be their banner man. By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. Fundamentally, we're currently building a society where the commons is privately controlled. Rejecting the analysis of freedom of speech for this society implies one does not actually value the concept.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  > By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. I don't follow. > Fundamentally, we're currently building a society where the commons is privately controlled. We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. And by the way, all society building is about compromise. It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for. The vocal opposition appears to be a minority. > Rejecting the analysis of freedom of speech for this society implies one does not actually value the concept. I haven't rejected any analysis. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. You are free to disagree, but I would appreciate if you did it honestly (and not by putting words into my mouth).
  - mindslight 10y ago
    If the government owns the atmosphere, then you need a license to use it. That license comes with a requirement that you will not use it to engage in bad speech. You're still free to write down whatever you'd like. > I haven't rejected any analysis You have repeatedly rejected applying the concept of "freedom of speech" to analyze the community of twitter users. Deprecating this widely-known general quality obscures the phenomenon as if it were something novel. > We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. Yes. Being able to express thoughts like "centralized platforms destroy freedom of speech" facilitates deciding and doing so. > It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for Actually most people just assume there should be someone telling them what to do, and then make up for their disempowerment by mobbing together against some minority. The entire point of rights is to protect the minority.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      Sorry, but the government does not own the atmosphere, and the point of rights is not to protect minorities.

mindslight 10y ago

I give up. You will be able to find a "logical" deduction to seemingly justify anything, because our memepool is full of contradictions and you are running the complexity generator forward. This is exactly what the government and corporations do (using the court system) to chip away our rights as they coalesce their centralized singular power. Obviously Twitter wants to be a petty dictator and disclaim any implied responsibility (eg their generally-unread TOS) - that doesn't mean you need to be their banner man. By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. Fundamentally, we're currently building a society where the commons is privately controlled. Rejecting the analysis of freedom of speech for this society implies one does not actually value the concept.

jjnoakes 10y ago
> By your same reasoning, the government could claim ownership of the atmosphere and be justified in restricting literal speech. I don't follow. > Fundamentally, we're currently building a society where the commons is privately controlled. We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. And by the way, all society building is about compromise. It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for. The vocal opposition appears to be a minority. > Rejecting the analysis of freedom of speech for this society implies one does not actually value the concept. I haven't rejected any analysis. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. You are free to disagree, but I would appreciate if you did it honestly (and not by putting words into my mouth).
- mindslight 10y ago
  If the government owns the atmosphere, then you need a license to use it. That license comes with a requirement that you will not use it to engage in bad speech. You're still free to write down whatever you'd like. > I haven't rejected any analysis You have repeatedly rejected applying the concept of "freedom of speech" to analyze the community of twitter users. Deprecating this widely-known general quality obscures the phenomenon as if it were something novel. > We're building that society by choice; if we don't fully agree with the ramifications of it, we should build it differently. Yes. Being able to express thoughts like "centralized platforms destroy freedom of speech" facilitates deciding and doing so. > It seems most people are happy with the compromise that the commons should be privately controlled (at least online) if it gives them the convenience they are looking for Actually most people just assume there should be someone telling them what to do, and then make up for their disempowerment by mobbing together against some minority. The entire point of rights is to protect the minority.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    Sorry, but the government does not own the atmosphere, and the point of rights is not to protect minorities.