10 ms·

There's an incredibly important difference between a corporation exercising its power to control speech on its platform and the US Federal Government exercising

There's an incredibly important difference between a corporation exercising its power to control speech on its platform and the US Federal Government exercising powers not granted to it by the laws of the United States to control speech in general.

cookiecaper 10y ago
While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak. A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.
- s73ver 10y ago
  Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for repeatedly violating the ToS.
  - olewhalehunter 10y ago
    that selective enforcement happened because of his views
    - manicdee 10y ago
      Is it hard work shifting those goalposts so often?
      - olewhalehunter 10y ago
        ?
    - s73ver 10y ago
      No, it didn't.
  - twitterta5902 10y ago
    Selective enforcement.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - klasjdflkj 10y ago
    There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring-harmless-pepe-accounts-1608780 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring...
    - odbol_ 10y ago
      Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people. Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
      - cyphar 10y ago
        There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned. To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism. I appreciate your even-mindedness. Question: do you honestly not see leftism as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
        tnone 10y ago
        There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one. The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
  - AOsborn 10y ago
    > Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. Or, he was, and the ToS raised as public justification.
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      Then why haven't they banned the thousands of other users with more extreme views who avoid breaching the ToS?
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        Because no one listens to them. There's no point dirtying your hands on people who are screaming into the void.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      Or, he did break the ToS, and that was that. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, despite being an actual, self identified Nazi.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Specifically what terms did he violate? Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to. Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up. Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
      - nailer 10y ago
        You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one. > Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior. Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Milo Y had the entire platform of breitbart. Nobody was really silencing the guy, other than his own need to needle people and push limits.
btown 10y ago
Notably, Milo Yiannopolis hasn't been sentenced to "compulsory psychiatric care" by the court system... https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 And neither will I be for making this post.
- tonmoy 10y ago
  Don't let the worst be the friend of the bad
olewhalehunter 10y ago
That difference lasts only as long as it takes for federal interests to infiltrate that corporation under the guise of normal employees and board members.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Please tell me more.
pilsetnieks 10y ago
Not just not granted, rather even, explicitly forbidden.
spaceflunky 10y ago
Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. 2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't. 3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  > 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
  - spaceflunky 10y ago
    > That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.

cookiecaper 10y ago

While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak. A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.

s73ver 10y ago
Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for repeatedly violating the ToS.
- olewhalehunter 10y ago
  that selective enforcement happened because of his views
  - manicdee 10y ago
    Is it hard work shifting those goalposts so often?
    - olewhalehunter 10y ago
      ?
  - s73ver 10y ago
    No, it didn't.
- twitterta5902 10y ago
  Selective enforcement.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- klasjdflkj 10y ago
  There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring-harmless-pepe-accounts-1608780 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring...
  - odbol_ 10y ago
    Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people. Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
    - cyphar 10y ago
      There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned. To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        > I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism. I appreciate your even-mindedness. Question: do you honestly not see leftism as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
        tnone 10y ago
        There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one. The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
- AOsborn 10y ago
  > Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. Or, he was, and the ToS raised as public justification.
  - ascorbic 10y ago
    Then why haven't they banned the thousands of other users with more extreme views who avoid breaching the ToS?
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Because no one listens to them. There's no point dirtying your hands on people who are screaming into the void.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    Or, he did break the ToS, and that was that. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, despite being an actual, self identified Nazi.
- nailer 10y ago
  Specifically what terms did he violate? Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to. Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up. Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
    - nailer 10y ago
      You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one. > Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior. Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
wavefunction 10y ago
Milo Y had the entire platform of breitbart. Nobody was really silencing the guy, other than his own need to needle people and push limits.

btown 10y ago

Notably, Milo Yiannopolis hasn't been sentenced to "compulsory psychiatric care" by the court system... https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 And neither will I be for making this post.

tonmoy 10y ago
Don't let the worst be the friend of the bad

olewhalehunter 10y ago

That difference lasts only as long as it takes for federal interests to infiltrate that corporation under the guise of normal employees and board members.

linkregister 10y ago
Please tell me more.

pilsetnieks 10y ago

Not just not granted, rather even, explicitly forbidden.

spaceflunky 10y ago

Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. 2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't. 3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.

debaserab2 10y ago
> 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  > That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.