3 ms·
I particularly like the bit about how a provider is found in violation of "good faith" if they act in violation of their own terms of service, OR, if they restr
by RNCTX 6y ago
I particularly like the bit about how a provider is found in violation of "good faith" if they act in violation of their own terms of service, OR, if they restrict access to material after insufficient notice, unreasoned explanation, or acting against a user who has not had a "meaningful opportunity to be heard."
Not being facetious, I really like it.
Everyone should start by mass-complaining to the White House's reporting tool the recent Twitter change allowing people to censor replies.
- monsonjeremy 6y agoWhy would you report the ability to hide replies? If someone replies to my tweet with something I don’t like, what’s wrong with me hiding the reply? It’s a lesser end result than blocking someone. I’m not obligated to platform your opinion on my post.
- RNCTX 6y agoSee that's the thing, it's not your post. It's all public. Twitter does not have private posts like Facebook does, nor does this change purport to make such a thing. Its design is specifically to allow people to amplify their own personal echo chamber, and pre-silence disagreement. The UI designer (hired from Facebook) who created the tool defended it with the notion that people should "want to watch people they admire have conversations" (his words). That's not social interaction, that's television. A one way communication medium in which the screen tells the observer what to think.
- tehwebguy 6y agoYou mean like disabling comments on a blog? Please explain what thought process could possibly lead you to this conclusion. You can scream whatever stupid shit you want in public but why in the world should you have the right to use someone else’s megaphone to do it?