3 ms·
You are correct that banning them from platforms limits their exposure, but why do you think it's desirable? Why defacto monopolies should decide who is allowe
by hkai 8y ago
You are correct that banning them from platforms limits their exposure, but why do you think it's desirable?
Why defacto monopolies should decide who is allowed to exercise speech and who must be silenced?
Do you feel this practice will never be turned against you? Do you disagree with the idea that if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, then nobody has freedom of speech?
And I know the common argument that sure, they can just start their own Twitter or move to another platform.
It's similar to how Republicans close all but one abortion clinic in a state and claim that whatever, you're still allowed to have abortions, but only in this one remote clinic and only on certain conditions.
- nemothekid 8y ago>but why do you think it's desirable? For the same reason I'm not allowed to post porn on hacker news. Why aren't we talking about how Y Combinator infringes on my freedom of speech by deleting my posts on Big Wet Asses 7? >Why defacto monopolies should decide who is allowed to exercise speech and who must be silenced? You should brush up on your definition of monopoly. What is the monopoly that is deciding who is silenced, and what market do they have a monopoly over? >Do you feel this practice will never be turned against you? Do you disagree with the idea that if crazy people don't have freedom of speech, then nobody has freedom of speech? This is a very tired and poor argument. If you have "crazy" ideas, like for example, if you believe the earth is flat, you are fully welcome on Twitter/Facebook. What Alex Jones and his ilk are accused of is harassment and inciting violence. The day I start using Twitter to incite violence is the day this "power" will turn against me. Until then, I have nothing to worry about.