4 ms·

> People should be able to have disagreeable opinions, even illegal opinions I think I missed the part where twitter has control over what opinions people are

> People should be able to have disagreeable opinions, even illegal opinions I think I missed the part where twitter has control over what opinions people are able to have. How ever did we every have any opinions before 2006?

mc32 7y ago
In order to combat vile trolling and direct incitement to violence, Twitter has taken it upon themselves to moderate other behaviors as well. There are historic tweets from senior people at Twitter which today would get banned. As an example, if I were to the r-word, I could get the hammer, depending if it’s noticed or not. I do not use the r-word. I think it’s in poor taste and reflects badly on one’s upbringing to use it, but yet I think in addition to being vernacular, we should not ban people for using “bad” words, of for this word to consider it hateful (at least in most contexts).
- tantalor 7y ago
  Twitter does not constrain your ability to hold/believe your opinion, merely to express it on their platform (which they own and grant you access under the condition you conform to the rules they apply to everybody).
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    But at what point do those platforms have a monopoly on distribution? I run my own Mastodon server and really enjoy the platform a lot more than Twitter, but the vast majority of people just use the big things that are out there. Facebook and Twitter may own their own platforms, but the collective value given to them by society and their ability to distribute ideas and change opinions globally should be deeply troubling and of great concern. It can even be said large platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google and even stores like Amazon are kinda their own States in some ways. They have governance. They have voters (shareholders). They have policy and negotiate policy with other governments via lobbies, and they can control what people see and persuade how people think.
    - tantalor 7y ago
      > their own States in some ways Hardly; states have rule of force.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    This will, in my opinion, be one of the great debates of our time. Does a private company have the right to choose which opinions can be expressed on its platform? It's really hard to choose.
  - mc32 7y ago
    So if a foreign concern were to buy Twitter and they changed their ToS and banned talk of dissident oppression in Russia and banned talk of persecutions in China and banned talk about climate change, people would just chuck it up to, “it's their platform” love it leave it?
    - tantalor 7y ago
      Yes.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Yes that's how I would react. So what. It's only Twitter. There are plenty of alternatives.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mc32 7y ago

In order to combat vile trolling and direct incitement to violence, Twitter has taken it upon themselves to moderate other behaviors as well. There are historic tweets from senior people at Twitter which today would get banned. As an example, if I were to the r-word, I could get the hammer, depending if it’s noticed or not. I do not use the r-word. I think it’s in poor taste and reflects badly on one’s upbringing to use it, but yet I think in addition to being vernacular, we should not ban people for using “bad” words, of for this word to consider it hateful (at least in most contexts).

tantalor 7y ago
Twitter does not constrain your ability to hold/believe your opinion, merely to express it on their platform (which they own and grant you access under the condition you conform to the rules they apply to everybody).
- djsumdog 7y ago
  But at what point do those platforms have a monopoly on distribution? I run my own Mastodon server and really enjoy the platform a lot more than Twitter, but the vast majority of people just use the big things that are out there. Facebook and Twitter may own their own platforms, but the collective value given to them by society and their ability to distribute ideas and change opinions globally should be deeply troubling and of great concern. It can even be said large platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google and even stores like Amazon are kinda their own States in some ways. They have governance. They have voters (shareholders). They have policy and negotiate policy with other governments via lobbies, and they can control what people see and persuade how people think.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    > their own States in some ways Hardly; states have rule of force.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  This will, in my opinion, be one of the great debates of our time. Does a private company have the right to choose which opinions can be expressed on its platform? It's really hard to choose.
- mc32 7y ago
  So if a foreign concern were to buy Twitter and they changed their ToS and banned talk of dissident oppression in Russia and banned talk of persecutions in China and banned talk about climate change, people would just chuck it up to, “it's their platform” love it leave it?
  - tantalor 7y ago
    Yes.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Yes that's how I would react. So what. It's only Twitter. There are plenty of alternatives.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]