4 ms·

Twitter is the place where the entire media and political classes hang out. They're all addicted to it. These people's opinions shape real-world politics and

Twitter is the place where the entire media and political classes hang out. They're all addicted to it. These people's opinions shape real-world politics and election outcomes. Could that be a 'limited public good'? Due to the network effects, it seems like only one website at a time would hold this status.

ashtonkem 6y ago
No, you don’t get to declare something to be a limited public good after it gets popular.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Twitter deserves credit for creating their platform, absolutely. They created a platform where everyday people can interact with top media and politicians. Now that it's here, and they're all on it.. "the coffee shop can throw you out" seems a little trite. I don't like Trump either, set him aside, what if we were on the wrong side of Twitter's politics?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I fear letting the government regulate twitter more than I fear twitter deciding my politics aren’t acceptable. I can leave Twitter, but creating a back door for the government to regulate political speech has consequences that stretch much further than Twitter itself.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I'm not talking about the government regulating speech, I'm talking about the government regulating against Twitter deciding your politics are unacceptable. Whatever they may be. More speech. I'd be fine with retaining Twitter's right to add commentary, as they did to Trump, as long as it's clear who's saying what.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Giving the government the explicit ability to enumerate what speech is and is not worthy of protection from Twitter is not a very pro free speech idea. It does not take a large amount of imagination to see how the ability to decide what speech must be carried can be easily abused by the government. Even without explicit abuse, this is effectively the government saying "you must transmit this information, no matter what", which is an unwelcome intrusion of governmental power, in my opinion.
        free_rms 6y ago
        I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are. We're just negotiating the boundaries. I'm advocating for the widest possible boundaries, because I think it creates the least possibility for the selective abuse that you're worried about. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects. It would be an expansion of the doctrine, but it's arguably justified to the extent that you can't just go 'start your own twitter'.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        > I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are. Child porn is unprotected speech that does not enjoy first amendment protections. What you are advocating for is giving the government control over forms of protected speech, which is a whole different ball of wax. Creating precedent that the government should regulate acknowledged protected speech is not a good idea at all. > What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects Twitter is not a monopoly.
        6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago

No, you don’t get to declare something to be a limited public good after it gets popular.

free_rms 6y ago
Twitter deserves credit for creating their platform, absolutely. They created a platform where everyday people can interact with top media and politicians. Now that it's here, and they're all on it.. "the coffee shop can throw you out" seems a little trite. I don't like Trump either, set him aside, what if we were on the wrong side of Twitter's politics?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I fear letting the government regulate twitter more than I fear twitter deciding my politics aren’t acceptable. I can leave Twitter, but creating a back door for the government to regulate political speech has consequences that stretch much further than Twitter itself.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I'm not talking about the government regulating speech, I'm talking about the government regulating against Twitter deciding your politics are unacceptable. Whatever they may be. More speech. I'd be fine with retaining Twitter's right to add commentary, as they did to Trump, as long as it's clear who's saying what.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Giving the government the explicit ability to enumerate what speech is and is not worthy of protection from Twitter is not a very pro free speech idea. It does not take a large amount of imagination to see how the ability to decide what speech must be carried can be easily abused by the government. Even without explicit abuse, this is effectively the government saying "you must transmit this information, no matter what", which is an unwelcome intrusion of governmental power, in my opinion.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are. We're just negotiating the boundaries. I'm advocating for the widest possible boundaries, because I think it creates the least possibility for the selective abuse that you're worried about. Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects. It would be an expansion of the doctrine, but it's arguably justified to the extent that you can't just go 'start your own twitter'.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        > I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are. Child porn is unprotected speech that does not enjoy first amendment protections. What you are advocating for is giving the government control over forms of protected speech, which is a whole different ball of wax. Creating precedent that the government should regulate acknowledged protected speech is not a good idea at all. > What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects Twitter is not a monopoly.
        6y ago