8 ms·

Surely there's a distinction to be made between a government censoring its citizens free-speech, and a private service allowing The most powerful man in the wor

Surely there's a distinction to be made between a government censoring its citizens free-speech, and a private service allowing The most powerful man in the world to use its platform to excuse white-supremacists and increase tension between hostile nuclear powers? Surely? This is not censorship we're talking about, and it's not free-speech. It's about having a set of rules on your social network and enforcing those rules. Unfortunately, twitter seems to have none.

edanm 9y ago
There is a difference, which is why I didn't talk about the 1st amendment or government protected free speech, so you seem to not be replying to my actual comment. All I'm saying is, if your rules imply that you need to censor the democratically elected leader of the US, then there's something wrong with your rules. Also, let's be clear on this - even if Twitter for some insane reason decided to censor President Trump, it's not like he has a lack of microphones around. As much as we techies love Twitter and other companies, there really are other solutions around, and I think POTUS specifically would be able to get his message out even without Twitter.
- roryisok 9y ago
  > you seem to not be replying to my actual comment. Sorry, I was sort of replying to both yours and the comment below it. neither of them mentioned free speech but it was sure to come up. > if your rules imply that you need to censor the democratically elected leader of the US, then there's something wrong with your rules So if I run a micro-blogging service and I make a rule which says "hey, nobody's allowed to be racist on here, ok?" and then Donald Trump signs up and says something racist, my rules are wrong because he's the president? Where's the logic in that? If the president breaks the law, is there something wrong with that law too? So we're clear here, twitter does not have any such rule. I'm suggesting it should.

edanm 9y ago

There is a difference, which is why I didn't talk about the 1st amendment or government protected free speech, so you seem to not be replying to my actual comment. All I'm saying is, if your rules imply that you need to censor the democratically elected leader of the US, then there's something wrong with your rules. Also, let's be clear on this - even if Twitter for some insane reason decided to censor President Trump, it's not like he has a lack of microphones around. As much as we techies love Twitter and other companies, there really are other solutions around, and I think POTUS specifically would be able to get his message out even without Twitter.

roryisok 9y ago
> you seem to not be replying to my actual comment. Sorry, I was sort of replying to both yours and the comment below it. neither of them mentioned free speech but it was sure to come up. > if your rules imply that you need to censor the democratically elected leader of the US, then there's something wrong with your rules So if I run a micro-blogging service and I make a rule which says "hey, nobody's allowed to be racist on here, ok?" and then Donald Trump signs up and says something racist, my rules are wrong because he's the president? Where's the logic in that? If the president breaks the law, is there something wrong with that law too? So we're clear here, twitter does not have any such rule. I'm suggesting it should.