3 ms·

I'm not talking about the government regulating speech, I'm talking about the government regulating against Twitter deciding your politics are unacceptable. Wh

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.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I'm suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly in the field of "being the watering hole for the entire media/political class". The argument hinges on network effects, I'm not saying it's ironclad, but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence. If that's the case, the common carrier concept is helpfully already fleshed out for us in the law. Good night.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        > I'm not talking about protected speech, or the first amendment. You're not intending to, but by giving the government the ability to regulate political speech you are. And yes; telling Twitter what they can do with political speech is governmental regulation of protected speech. You're giving the government to decide what forms of protected speech get extra special protection, which is a form of regulation. > I am suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly, and subject to the common carrier doctrine, on "being the watering whole for the entire media/political class". So, I can declare any company a monopoly if they have cornered a specific user base, no matter how vague? Is Slack now a monopoly because they're popular in tech offices? Can I regulate declare Reddit a monopoly for sports fans and regulate it as such? What is the general principle that will decide whether or not a company should be regulated as a monopoly? And how in the world do you define the "media" class in order to regulate companies like Twitter? Only 22% of Americans use Twitter daily. That is not a monopoly, period. > but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence. Sure, but that's no argument for an expansion of government power.
        free_rms 6y ago
        I know I already said good night, but you haven't engaged with that common carrier concept at all. Check it out. We've been through all of this already with Ma Bell. Good night.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
bcrosby95 6y ago
So, you want to make political beliefs a protected class? Would that make political parties illegal?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I'm suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly in the field of "being the watering hole for the entire media/political class". The argument hinges on network effects, I'm not saying it's ironclad, but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence. If that's the case, the common carrier concept is helpfully already fleshed out for us in the law. Good night.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > I'm not talking about protected speech, or the first amendment. You're not intending to, but by giving the government the ability to regulate political speech you are. And yes; telling Twitter what they can do with political speech is governmental regulation of protected speech. You're giving the government to decide what forms of protected speech get extra special protection, which is a form of regulation. > I am suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly, and subject to the common carrier doctrine, on "being the watering whole for the entire media/political class". So, I can declare any company a monopoly if they have cornered a specific user base, no matter how vague? Is Slack now a monopoly because they're popular in tech offices? Can I regulate declare Reddit a monopoly for sports fans and regulate it as such? What is the general principle that will decide whether or not a company should be regulated as a monopoly? And how in the world do you define the "media" class in order to regulate companies like Twitter? Only 22% of Americans use Twitter daily. That is not a monopoly, period. > but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence. Sure, but that's no argument for an expansion of government power.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I know I already said good night, but you haven't engaged with that common carrier concept at all. Check it out. We've been through all of this already with Ma Bell. Good night.
        ashtonkem 6y ago

bcrosby95 6y ago

So, you want to make political beliefs a protected class? Would that make political parties illegal?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]