5 ms·

It is not a company operating in a vacuum but a public company in a democracy and is subject to the laws (and in general, political will) of the society. If com

It is not a company operating in a vacuum but a public company in a democracy and is subject to the laws (and in general, political will) of the society. If companies were free to "censor, modify, change anything they want at any point in time", then we would not have anti-trust laws or close scrutiny of dominant companies. Ultimately, companies don't exist in a vacuum. If they don't adhere to the political will of the society they operate in,

notyourwork 7y ago
Vacuum has nothing to do with it. Twitter is a platform, you are not compelled to use it. Don’t like it that is fine but popularity doesn’t imply it requires to operate any way other than the way it decides as a company. Why do we expect companies to act like a government we have control over?
- anonymousab 7y ago
  If they have become the de facto public square, an integral location to participate in public society, then they should be subject to society's whims. There's no reason that those whims must be executed through market instead of through government.
- baq 7y ago
  If POTUS communicates via Twitter primarily, there’s no option to ‘not use it’. Twitter crossed the line between just a company and a utility a while ago, together with Google and Facebook.
  - notyourwork 7y ago
    People don't have TV, how did presidents ever give addresses to the people before? There most certainly is an option to not use twitter, I know lots of people in that demographic. What line did twitter cross?
  - imbored 7y ago
    Then ban POTUS too.
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Verizon is a public company would you allow them to block you from making a call because of a text you’ve sent 9 years ago?
  - notyourwork 7y ago
    Your question implies you consider Twitter a common carrier. Verizon as a phone company falls under common carrier rules. Twitter (social media) does not and therefore, its not the same. If we want to reclassify social media as common carrier we need regulation to do so but that is not how the internet or social media companies work today. Sadly the internet in of itself doesn't even fall under common carrier.
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      I understand I think when you have a monopoly over a communication medium common carrier laws should apply even without legislation. The problematic case here is that all other common carrier are funded through service chargers where social media is funded through advertising and other revenue streams. That said it’s not like social media companies aren’t at fault here too they hide behind the notion that they are a common carrier or a publisher when it suits them as in when they don’t want to be directly liable for the content on their platform. On the other hand they moderate content to appease advertisers even when there is no direct pressure to do so like in this case. My personal opinion is that Twitter should not ban anyone, if the Twits are sufficiently offensive (not in a personal manner but rather a legal one) then law enforcement should handle it like it would handle any other type of abusive or offensive communication. If I send you a death threat via the post the postal service won’t ban me the police might come tho if you report me.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > when you have a monopoly over a communication medium Twitter does not have a monopoly over internet communication.
        7y ago
- RestlessMind 7y ago
  > Why do we expect companies to act like a government we have control over? Because people always have control over the companies serving them, as it should be. Without people exerting control, we won't have - antitrust regulations, civil rights legislations, ADA, EPA regulations, Clean Water Act, Financial regulations etc. And I believe those regulations were essential towards making a better society. Mind you, I am not advocating for a communism-style abolishing of private property. But neither do I want to see a libertarian wild west of no government control. That is just other extreme. What we have currently seems to be a good trade-off, where companies have a lot of freedoms but political will can step in occasionally to demand changes to the way they operate.
throwaway_law 7y ago
>It is not a company operating in a vacuum but a public company in a democracy The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution limits the Governmental Powers to make laws restricting speech, the Constitution does not give individuals the right to use corporate places of business or platforms to disseminate their speech.
- DiseasedBadger 7y ago
  It isn't just a place of corporate business, though. That's why Trump was not allowed to block people. Twitter shouldn't be able to, either.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  > The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is facile: it is both, and there is no contradiction. > the Constitution does not give individuals the right to use corporate places Certainly it does: the right of free association. But that's not what you meant; you meant that the Constitution does not compel the corporate place to allow individual speech. Which is true but incomplete, since we have other laws currently about a related concept, "common carriers". The debate is much higher level than the Constitution: it's about how far to extend the idea that a private conveyance has become so essential to public use that it is subject to regulation. (Meaning, yes, that some of the private entity's rights are curtailed.)
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >This is facile It is basic 7th grade civics, Section 4 of the Constitution: >The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government Founding Father John Adams: >"No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple representative democracy, but by consent of the majority or their representatives." The word "democracy" appearing in the Constitution: 0 Extra fun fact, the US is not the first Constitutional Republic, it is the 2nd behind San Marino. > there is no contradiction If you used democratic republic there is not, where the people vote and elect the representative leaders, then there is no contradiction. But democracy comes from Ancient Greece where all citizens with a right to vote directly decided the issues with votes, issues were not decided by elected representative. Its a significantly different form of government not just a typical HN pedantic point. >the right of free association The right to associate has nothing to do with accessing corporate property to disseminate your speech.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

notyourwork 7y ago

Vacuum has nothing to do with it. Twitter is a platform, you are not compelled to use it. Don’t like it that is fine but popularity doesn’t imply it requires to operate any way other than the way it decides as a company. Why do we expect companies to act like a government we have control over?

anonymousab 7y ago
If they have become the de facto public square, an integral location to participate in public society, then they should be subject to society's whims. There's no reason that those whims must be executed through market instead of through government.
baq 7y ago
If POTUS communicates via Twitter primarily, there’s no option to ‘not use it’. Twitter crossed the line between just a company and a utility a while ago, together with Google and Facebook.
- notyourwork 7y ago
  People don't have TV, how did presidents ever give addresses to the people before? There most certainly is an option to not use twitter, I know lots of people in that demographic. What line did twitter cross?
- imbored 7y ago
  Then ban POTUS too.
dogma1138 7y ago
Verizon is a public company would you allow them to block you from making a call because of a text you’ve sent 9 years ago?
- notyourwork 7y ago
  Your question implies you consider Twitter a common carrier. Verizon as a phone company falls under common carrier rules. Twitter (social media) does not and therefore, its not the same. If we want to reclassify social media as common carrier we need regulation to do so but that is not how the internet or social media companies work today. Sadly the internet in of itself doesn't even fall under common carrier.
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    I understand I think when you have a monopoly over a communication medium common carrier laws should apply even without legislation. The problematic case here is that all other common carrier are funded through service chargers where social media is funded through advertising and other revenue streams. That said it’s not like social media companies aren’t at fault here too they hide behind the notion that they are a common carrier or a publisher when it suits them as in when they don’t want to be directly liable for the content on their platform. On the other hand they moderate content to appease advertisers even when there is no direct pressure to do so like in this case. My personal opinion is that Twitter should not ban anyone, if the Twits are sufficiently offensive (not in a personal manner but rather a legal one) then law enforcement should handle it like it would handle any other type of abusive or offensive communication. If I send you a death threat via the post the postal service won’t ban me the police might come tho if you report me.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > when you have a monopoly over a communication medium Twitter does not have a monopoly over internet communication.
      - 7y ago
RestlessMind 7y ago
> Why do we expect companies to act like a government we have control over? Because people always have control over the companies serving them, as it should be. Without people exerting control, we won't have - antitrust regulations, civil rights legislations, ADA, EPA regulations, Clean Water Act, Financial regulations etc. And I believe those regulations were essential towards making a better society. Mind you, I am not advocating for a communism-style abolishing of private property. But neither do I want to see a libertarian wild west of no government control. That is just other extreme. What we have currently seems to be a good trade-off, where companies have a lot of freedoms but political will can step in occasionally to demand changes to the way they operate.

throwaway_law 7y ago

>It is not a company operating in a vacuum but a public company in a democracy The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution limits the Governmental Powers to make laws restricting speech, the Constitution does not give individuals the right to use corporate places of business or platforms to disseminate their speech.

DiseasedBadger 7y ago
It isn't just a place of corporate business, though. That's why Trump was not allowed to block people. Twitter shouldn't be able to, either.
wool_gather 7y ago
> The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is facile: it is both, and there is no contradiction. > the Constitution does not give individuals the right to use corporate places Certainly it does: the right of free association. But that's not what you meant; you meant that the Constitution does not compel the corporate place to allow individual speech. Which is true but incomplete, since we have other laws currently about a related concept, "common carriers". The debate is much higher level than the Constitution: it's about how far to extend the idea that a private conveyance has become so essential to public use that it is subject to regulation. (Meaning, yes, that some of the private entity's rights are curtailed.)
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >This is facile It is basic 7th grade civics, Section 4 of the Constitution: >The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government Founding Father John Adams: >"No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple representative democracy, but by consent of the majority or their representatives." The word "democracy" appearing in the Constitution: 0 Extra fun fact, the US is not the first Constitutional Republic, it is the 2nd behind San Marino. > there is no contradiction If you used democratic republic there is not, where the people vote and elect the representative leaders, then there is no contradiction. But democracy comes from Ancient Greece where all citizens with a right to vote directly decided the issues with votes, issues were not decided by elected representative. Its a significantly different form of government not just a typical HN pedantic point. >the right of free association The right to associate has nothing to do with accessing corporate property to disseminate your speech.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]