5 ms·

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

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.
      - dogma1138 7y ago
        It’s like saying that Time Warner doesn’t have a monopoly over the electromagnetic spectrum, while technically true in practice in some areas they do. Twitter is a crucial social communications platform for large enough portion of some societies to treat them as a monopoly.
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.

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.
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      It’s like saying that Time Warner doesn’t have a monopoly over the electromagnetic spectrum, while technically true in practice in some areas they do. Twitter is a crucial social communications platform for large enough portion of some societies to treat them as a monopoly.

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.