15 ms·

Twitter is a business - they are not rounding people up for extermination. This is a poor, and hyperbolic comparison.

virmundi 9y ago
They are increasingly a major conduit for speech. Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech. This does two things a) sets precedence for future speech limitations and b) makes it harder for us to track people associated with terrorism. Both are bad since they historically lead to more violence.
- josefresco 9y ago
  "Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech." I disagree - are you saying access to a social network like Twitter should be a human right?
  - virmundi 9y ago
    Not fully. The problem is the network effect. Look at the Arab Spring. "Everyone should have access to Twitter due to freedom". Now we see the other side of speech and run away.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  No. You've never had an inherent right to have people listen to you.
MrZongle2 9y ago
It might not be the best comparison, but OP was on-target with their last sentence: "Who defines what is considered terrorism and what isn't? Once censorship infrastructure is in place, it will get abused." Today, it's ISIS. Well, that's OK -- they're clearly terrorists. Tomorrow, it's the KKK and White Supremacy groups. Well, that's OK too -- they're racists. Next month, it's climate change deniers -- that's probably just as well, as climate change is a threat to civilization and these guys are merely standing in the way of a solution. Two months from now, it's Trump supporters -- might as well, as Trump is against taking action against climate change and the whole alt-right thing is a nebulous group that includes the already-banned bunch of racists.... Next year, it's the people who objected to all the Trump supporters being censored -- they clearly aren't on-board with keeping online speech civil and hate-free.... Etc. Yes, Twitter is a private organization and therefore cannot run afoul of any 1st Amendment protections. The danger isn't from certain groups being able to tweet, it's from this casual "ban what we don't like" attitude so easily adopted by individuals and groups who would otherwise be screaming bloody murder if they were the ones being scrutinized. I'm all for bombing ISIS and similar groups to oblivion. I'm not OK with this latest fad of neo-Puritanism determining what is "hateful" and unacceptable speech and the subsequent hand-washing because it's private industry doing it rather than the government. Edit: If you disagree, take the time to explain why. Otherwise, your downvotes simply further illustrate my point: I'm saying something you don't like, so you'll do your best to simply punish & censor an alternative viewpoint.
- matt4077 9y ago
  If the slope were that slippery, you couldn't do anything: "Now you want me to do the dishes. But if I agree to that, you will soon ask me to build a spaceship!"
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    History has repeatedly shown that the slope is that slippery. Just within the last 17 years, we've seen plenty of examples of events and behavior that at one time would have been considered unacceptable or shocking become normalized and "par for the course". That we have shiny beeping toys and a broader vocabulary to describe aspects of human behavior today doesn't change the fact that human behavior itself hasn't changed in a long, long time. That which can be abused, will be abused.

They are increasingly a major conduit for speech. Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech. This does two things a) sets precedence for future speech limitations and b) makes it harder for us to track people associated with terrorism. Both are bad since they historically lead to more violence.

josefresco 9y ago
"Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech." I disagree - are you saying access to a social network like Twitter should be a human right?
- virmundi 9y ago
  Not fully. The problem is the network effect. Look at the Arab Spring. "Everyone should have access to Twitter due to freedom". Now we see the other side of speech and run away.
s73ver_ 9y ago
No. You've never had an inherent right to have people listen to you.

MrZongle2 9y ago

It might not be the best comparison, but OP was on-target with their last sentence: "Who defines what is considered terrorism and what isn't? Once censorship infrastructure is in place, it will get abused." Today, it's ISIS. Well, that's OK -- they're clearly terrorists. Tomorrow, it's the KKK and White Supremacy groups. Well, that's OK too -- they're racists. Next month, it's climate change deniers -- that's probably just as well, as climate change is a threat to civilization and these guys are merely standing in the way of a solution. Two months from now, it's Trump supporters -- might as well, as Trump is against taking action against climate change and the whole alt-right thing is a nebulous group that includes the already-banned bunch of racists.... Next year, it's the people who objected to all the Trump supporters being censored -- they clearly aren't on-board with keeping online speech civil and hate-free.... Etc. Yes, Twitter is a private organization and therefore cannot run afoul of any 1st Amendment protections. The danger isn't from certain groups being able to tweet, it's from this casual "ban what we don't like" attitude so easily adopted by individuals and groups who would otherwise be screaming bloody murder if they were the ones being scrutinized. I'm all for bombing ISIS and similar groups to oblivion. I'm not OK with this latest fad of neo-Puritanism determining what is "hateful" and unacceptable speech and the subsequent hand-washing because it's private industry doing it rather than the government. Edit: If you disagree, take the time to explain why. Otherwise, your downvotes simply further illustrate my point: I'm saying something you don't like, so you'll do your best to simply punish & censor an alternative viewpoint.

matt4077 9y ago
If the slope were that slippery, you couldn't do anything: "Now you want me to do the dishes. But if I agree to that, you will soon ask me to build a spaceship!"
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  History has repeatedly shown that the slope is that slippery. Just within the last 17 years, we've seen plenty of examples of events and behavior that at one time would have been considered unacceptable or shocking become normalized and "par for the course". That we have shiny beeping toys and a broader vocabulary to describe aspects of human behavior today doesn't change the fact that human behavior itself hasn't changed in a long, long time. That which can be abused, will be abused.