4 ms·
I agree with them for not removing this person. Twitter should be a free speech platform. Unfortunately they've proven remarkably inconsistent in the applicatio
by jsonne 10y ago
I agree with them for not removing this person. Twitter should be a free speech platform. Unfortunately they've proven remarkably inconsistent in the application, and people on the right are going to call this hypocritical. While it may or may not be true it does, on the surface, appear to be that way. I hope that moving forward Twitter can aspire to be a true free speech platform where they don't remove anyone for criticism or parody of public figures, but I won't get my hopes up.
- kerkeslager 10y agoThis is one of the major reasons not to use social media. The Internet as a whole has free speech inasmuch as governments protect free speech, but centralized social media has no such protections, and as unpopular opinions make sites unprofitable, they are incentivized to censor. The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
- Swizec 10y ago> The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience. You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't. Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
- michaelmrose 10y agoYou are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
- s73ver 10y agoUnfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
- kerkeslager 10y ago> You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms. Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
- s73ver 10y agoPlease don't fall into the trap of calling the things that are banned just "unpopular". We're not talking about disagreements over tax policy. These things are harassment, they are threats of violence, and they are white nationalist/white supremacist garbage.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoLeaving aside threats of violence, which are properly illegal, what you're arguing for here is for free speech to be limited to the expression of ideas with which you agree.
- jolux 10y agoThis is true in the extreme but to reduce white supremacy to a mere disagreement is reductive and also willfully naive, I think.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoAnd it's the extreme that matters. Free speech is a human right.
- s73ver 10y agoI don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoI think we're in agreement here. My point was relating to the legal freedom of speech, not any obligation on Twitter's part re. the use of their platform.
- s73ver 10y agoNot at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associate with them.