3 ms·
This is just an insane level of censorship, I don't care if they are literally for-real Nazis. It's not the place of corporations to pick and choose who should
by cgore 9y ago
This is just an insane level of censorship, I don't care if they are literally for-real Nazis. It's not the place of corporations to pick and choose who should have Freedom of Speech.
- therealmarv 9y agoa badge from a private corporation is not Freedom of Speech. Who cares about this verified badge? People who care should spent more time on LinkedIn ;)
- dragonwriter 9y agoCorporations themselves (or the natural persons for which they are abstractions created to serve) have freedom of speech, and controlling what speech they relay, and how they present the speech they do relay, is an exercise of that freedom. Asserting that they should not be able to do so is, in fact, an argument against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to have other people use their resources to further your speech irrespective of their own preferences.
- lovich 9y agoI'm fine with corporations picking and choosing who can talk on their services but I feel like there needs to be more responsibility with it. You can either have an agnostic platform that only removes things with a legal order and the company is indemnified from legal consequences from it's users posts, or you decide to take specific actions but now you are responsible for the content. Getting the legal benefits of being a modern public square but then also being able to silence people to improve your profit margin is where this seems to be the problem
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zerostar07 9y agoindeed its not the place of corporations, that s the job of a state, so far. so twitter is free to be as censorious as their marketing requires.
- ptyyy 9y ago"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see anything about Twitter in the 1st Amendment.
- tortasaur 9y agoWho mentioned the first amendment?
- craftyguy 9y agoYou did. "Freedom of speech."
- owlmirror 9y agoFreedom of speech is not synonymous with the first amendment.
- cgore 9y agoYup. "Freedom of Speech" is something you have. "The First Amendment" is a bit of governance that says the US Federal Government has to at least pretend to give a shit about it. If the US Federal Government can't restrict my speech, why should your average butcher, baker, or candlestick maker be able to?
- tortasaur 9y agoI'm not the parent commenter, and "freedom of speech" is not the same thing as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.