3 ms·

Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its private property. That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags

by loopz 6y ago

Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its private property. That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
unethical_ban 6y ago
I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right. And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth. Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards. Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".
- weare138 6y ago
  >I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of morality in the situation on the other party? > And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    The Constitution is an amendable law. Perhaps the mega-networks that are defacto utilities should have clearer social contracts with our government.
- loopz 6y ago
  If government provided social media, people would be up in arms about the potential for abuse and data surveillance. Meanwhile, when corporations sell their data to other corporations and governments, all is good. There's like suffocating irony and the fakers are trivial to spot when you refuse to buy into the spouted ideology. You're right there are no easy answers, which is why the debate needs to be open, free from bullying and self-serving personal attacks.
smitty1e 6y ago
The argument in this context is that social media enjoys the legal protections of being a "platform" while operating much more in the mode of a "publisher". As somebody who (as here) frequently finds his opinions squelched, I'm unimpressed with all of the angst. No one is forcing anyone to use any platforms, or be in the internet at all. The idea that the big platforms should be treated more like utilities doesn't seem fully formed.

by loopz 6y ago

Twitter is a private entity and at liberty to do whatever it pleases with its private property. That the irony is lost to someone should raise bright red flags.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

unethical_ban 6y ago

I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral. Perhaps Twitter does have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. That doesn't make it right. And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. Perhaps we should have legislation that governs the actions of social media platforms, that scales with the size of their userbase, to maintain cohesion and some respect for truth. Enter all the concerns about "who decides truth and fairness" and all those hazards. Again, I didn't say it was an easy discussion, or even that there are any answers. But there are increments between "just let Michelle Malkin and her ilk lie and stir people up with literal, provably false untruths and hatred to the detriment of American society" and "blackball everyone who doesn't toe the liberal zeitgeist".

weare138 6y ago
>I'm not talking legal, I'm talking moral Knowingly violating the terms of service you agreed to when you chose to use a free service like Twitter also seems to have some moral implications. I don't see how you can draw some moral equivalence between the two. If one party involved is already acting in bad faith then how is it fair to put the onus of morality in the situation on the other party? > And perhaps they shouldn't have the right to delete whatever they want for whatever reason. So you're saying if you owned a website the government should have the authority to force you to host content at your own expense? This would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  The Constitution is an amendable law. Perhaps the mega-networks that are defacto utilities should have clearer social contracts with our government.
loopz 6y ago
If government provided social media, people would be up in arms about the potential for abuse and data surveillance. Meanwhile, when corporations sell their data to other corporations and governments, all is good. There's like suffocating irony and the fakers are trivial to spot when you refuse to buy into the spouted ideology. You're right there are no easy answers, which is why the debate needs to be open, free from bullying and self-serving personal attacks.

smitty1e 6y ago

The argument in this context is that social media enjoys the legal protections of being a "platform" while operating much more in the mode of a "publisher". As somebody who (as here) frequently finds his opinions squelched, I'm unimpressed with all of the angst. No one is forcing anyone to use any platforms, or be in the internet at all. The idea that the big platforms should be treated more like utilities doesn't seem fully formed.