4 ms·

> The parent wasn't saying that it does. Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump. Absolutely nothing Twitter does is

> The parent wasn't saying that it does. Yes they were. The first amendment does not apply to Twitter. It applies to Trump. Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. Not true of Trump.

SilasX 8y ago
>> The parent wasn't saying that it does. >Yes they were. Where? >Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. I agreed with that: >>if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. Do you understand the difference between "A implies B" and "A is true"? I was saying the former. I agree with you that the latter is false (where A="The first amendment applies to Twitter). Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear?
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  > Where? Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" That's... pretty darn clear. > Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear? The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    >Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" >That's... pretty darn clear. Yes, it's clearly supporting exactly what I originally claimed: that the OP was saying this ruling implies that Twitter must do X and is therefore absurd, not that the OP thinks Twitter must do X. Again, the concept of a reductio ad absurdum, extremely common in internet forums like this one: "You claimed X, which implies Y, which is absurd. So X must be wrong." "The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter" doesn't engage with that at all. >The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Not when I'm objecting to the attribution and clarified specifically what I meant. >Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing. What about when I disagree with the attribution of a claim and want to clarify someone's point? What other way could I have possibly clarified the parent's point so that you wouldn't misinterpret my comment? Just so I know for future writing. If you just didn't read what I wrote or didn't follow the actual discussion, you should probably just own up to it and not make up some story about how there's an actual improvement possible over the original post. (FWIW, you still can't seem to think of such an improvement.) If I may make a suggestion, the problem might be that you immediately think that any critical comment must be disagreeing with everything in that comment, even if the text of comment says otherwise, and you can therefore ignore the text. That's an error on your end to correct, and there's nothing in my writing that would fix it.

SilasX 8y ago

>> The parent wasn't saying that it does. >Yes they were. Where? >Absolutely nothing Twitter does is even capable of being a 1st Amendment issue. I agreed with that: >>if you consider Twitter[1] a public square (as the court does), and thus you can't stop people from "petitioning the government" through it, then it's a double-edged sword: they must also protect the same speech that would be protected in a public square. Do you understand the difference between "A implies B" and "A is true"? I was saying the former. I agree with you that the latter is false (where A="The first amendment applies to Twitter). Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear?

abritinthebay 8y ago
> Where? Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" That's... pretty darn clear. > Can you help me to find the part of my original comment that made the above unclear? The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing.
- SilasX 8y ago
  >Here: "that must mean that Twitter banning people is also a violation of the first amendment" >That's... pretty darn clear. Yes, it's clearly supporting exactly what I originally claimed: that the OP was saying this ruling implies that Twitter must do X and is therefore absurd, not that the OP thinks Twitter must do X. Again, the concept of a reductio ad absurdum, extremely common in internet forums like this one: "You claimed X, which implies Y, which is absurd. So X must be wrong." "The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter" doesn't engage with that at all. >The first two lines of your comment frame your response as counter to the position of the person you are replying to. That would be counter to you new claim that you agree it's not a 1st Amendment issue. Not when I'm objecting to the attribution and clarified specifically what I meant. >Disagreement with a claim followed by an argument is generally taken by readers as an argument as to why the claim is wrong, not right. Just so you know for future writing. What about when I disagree with the attribution of a claim and want to clarify someone's point? What other way could I have possibly clarified the parent's point so that you wouldn't misinterpret my comment? Just so I know for future writing. If you just didn't read what I wrote or didn't follow the actual discussion, you should probably just own up to it and not make up some story about how there's an actual improvement possible over the original post. (FWIW, you still can't seem to think of such an improvement.) If I may make a suggestion, the problem might be that you immediately think that any critical comment must be disagreeing with everything in that comment, even if the text of comment says otherwise, and you can therefore ignore the text. That's an error on your end to correct, and there's nothing in my writing that would fix it.