3 ms·

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations. It's not the government, they abso

There's no way they can ban him for saying that yet still claim to enforce the rules equally for all political affiliations. It's not the government, they absolutely can ban people for anything they want and they don't have to be consistent about it. There's nothing you can do about this it than deleting your account, complaining about them on the internet, and/or acquiring a seat on their board of directors and effecting change from within. I suppose a hostile takeover of the entire company should be mentioned, too. Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination.

SilasX 8y ago
The argument was against their claim to enforce the rules neutrally, not that it's illegal.
- rhizome 8y ago
  And part of my argument is that the lie is in the word "neutrality," not their enforcement policies, which by all accounts are evenly uneven.
malvosenior 8y ago
> Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination. Neutral is what Dorsey claimed in the video I linked to. I'm saying here is direct evidence, the next day, that they are not actually neutral.
- rhizome 8y ago
  "Shitty for everybody" indicates a kind of neutrality.
manfredo 8y ago
Sure Twitter and other tech platforms are well within their rights to act in an explicitly partisan manner, but their reputations will suffer and the government will be even more keen on breaking them up and putting them on a tight regulatory leash.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Their reputation will suffer among who, white supremacists? Maybe they'll burn their computers in protest like so many Nike shoes.
readams 8y ago
This seems to be a common trope lately. The claim seems to be that because censorship by private parties is not banned by the constitution, it is therefore a good idea. It is entirely fair to criticize private parties for censorship even though there may be no legal recourse. It is in turn almost never a good idea to demand the censorship of ideas you don't like.
- charlesism 8y ago
  > This seems to be a common trope lately. That's because it has only become self-evident lately. It has become much harder to believe that reason and truth will prevail on the internet. Back in the 1990s, it was easier to be idealistic.

SilasX 8y ago

The argument was against their claim to enforce the rules neutrally, not that it's illegal.

rhizome 8y ago
And part of my argument is that the lie is in the word "neutrality," not their enforcement policies, which by all accounts are evenly uneven.

malvosenior 8y ago

> Furthermore, "neutrality" is a figment of your imagination. Neutral is what Dorsey claimed in the video I linked to. I'm saying here is direct evidence, the next day, that they are not actually neutral.

rhizome 8y ago
"Shitty for everybody" indicates a kind of neutrality.

manfredo 8y ago

Sure Twitter and other tech platforms are well within their rights to act in an explicitly partisan manner, but their reputations will suffer and the government will be even more keen on breaking them up and putting them on a tight regulatory leash.

rhizome 8y ago
Their reputation will suffer among who, white supremacists? Maybe they'll burn their computers in protest like so many Nike shoes.

readams 8y ago

This seems to be a common trope lately. The claim seems to be that because censorship by private parties is not banned by the constitution, it is therefore a good idea. It is entirely fair to criticize private parties for censorship even though there may be no legal recourse. It is in turn almost never a good idea to demand the censorship of ideas you don't like.

charlesism 8y ago
> This seems to be a common trope lately. That's because it has only become self-evident lately. It has become much harder to believe that reason and truth will prevail on the internet. Back in the 1990s, it was easier to be idealistic.