4 ms·

And after that "massive amount of thought" there was no legal restriction put on companies that "deplatform" users like Alex Jones. Go figure.

colordrops 8y ago
It feels to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding my comment. I was suggesting that the platform claiming to support free speech would be true to their word by opening up as much as legally possible, rather than do anything they want just because it's legal.
- tomlock 8y ago
  Do you feel like I would have gained anything from your observation that thought has been put into the American legal system? That legal system deliberately doesn't place restrictions on platforms like twitter - might I similarly suggest that you should consider that there was a great deal of thought put into that deliberate omission. If a platform like twitter supports free speech as thoughtfully considered by the American legal system, they are acting consistently with that if they deplatform people like Alex Jones. An example of them not acting consistently with that would be taking government direction on silencing users.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    You are arguing with a straw man. I said nothing about their ability to act arbitrarily within the legal bounds. I also said nothing about them taking government direction on silencing users. The crux of my statement is about how a platform that claims to emphasize free speech should behave. Don't get confused and think I'm talking about how a company is legally required to behave, or the degrees of freedom a company has within the legal system.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      Don't worry, there's no danger of me becoming confused here. When you condescended to me about how much thought was put into the American legal system surrounding free speech, and then related that to a private company, I knew you were confused. Its quite clear that these thoughtful legal decisions contain no advice for a private company.
      - colordrops 8y ago
        You change the nature of your argument with every comment. No point in chasing a moving target.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Incorrect. You're just having difficulty understanding that the legal precedent surrounding free speech is not applicable to this situation.
        colordrops 8y ago
        Maybe you should explain why it is not applicable, rather than persist in loquacious but insubstantial contradiction. I am stating an opinion of how a company that claims to greatly value free speech should operate. To simply state that I am wrong without any reasoning behind it is a waste of everyone's time.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Because free speech legislation focuses almost entirely on government intervention. Which is a point I made immediately after you condescended to me about America's legal system.
        colordrops 8y ago
        And here's the direct evidence that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I said absolutely nothing about government intervention on social media platforms.

colordrops 8y ago

It feels to me that you are intentionally misunderstanding my comment. I was suggesting that the platform claiming to support free speech would be true to their word by opening up as much as legally possible, rather than do anything they want just because it's legal.

tomlock 8y ago
Do you feel like I would have gained anything from your observation that thought has been put into the American legal system? That legal system deliberately doesn't place restrictions on platforms like twitter - might I similarly suggest that you should consider that there was a great deal of thought put into that deliberate omission. If a platform like twitter supports free speech as thoughtfully considered by the American legal system, they are acting consistently with that if they deplatform people like Alex Jones. An example of them not acting consistently with that would be taking government direction on silencing users.
- colordrops 8y ago
  You are arguing with a straw man. I said nothing about their ability to act arbitrarily within the legal bounds. I also said nothing about them taking government direction on silencing users. The crux of my statement is about how a platform that claims to emphasize free speech should behave. Don't get confused and think I'm talking about how a company is legally required to behave, or the degrees of freedom a company has within the legal system.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    Don't worry, there's no danger of me becoming confused here. When you condescended to me about how much thought was put into the American legal system surrounding free speech, and then related that to a private company, I knew you were confused. Its quite clear that these thoughtful legal decisions contain no advice for a private company.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      You change the nature of your argument with every comment. No point in chasing a moving target.
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Incorrect. You're just having difficulty understanding that the legal precedent surrounding free speech is not applicable to this situation.
        colordrops 8y ago
        Maybe you should explain why it is not applicable, rather than persist in loquacious but insubstantial contradiction. I am stating an opinion of how a company that claims to greatly value free speech should operate. To simply state that I am wrong without any reasoning behind it is a waste of everyone's time.
        tomlock 8y ago
        Because free speech legislation focuses almost entirely on government intervention. Which is a point I made immediately after you condescended to me about America's legal system.
        colordrops 8y ago
        And here's the direct evidence that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I said absolutely nothing about government intervention on social media platforms.