3 ms·

Think about the leverage this gives the administration. Sure, Twitter pushes a lot of garbage content, but singling them out puts the administration in a positi

Think about the leverage this gives the administration. Sure, Twitter pushes a lot of garbage content, but singling them out puts the administration in a position to demand compliance from others under threat of losing their 230 status. This is an incredibly fascist move disguised as an egalitarian one.

Simulacra 6y ago
Think about the leverage Twitter already has! If Twitter wanted to, and not saying they haven't, they could easily sway an election, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Surely you can find a better reason than simply saying this is fascist.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  Could Twitter sway an election? Maybe, but it’s speculative. This move is concrete and would give the president the power to go to any tech company and say “do as I wish or I will gut you” in no uncertain terms. This is classic power consolidation and is a core strategy of fascist regimes. I’m in no way being hyperbolic here. I’m not Twitter doesn’t deserve to be regulated, because they do. However, choosing to conditionally regulate companies this way is a great way to fuel corruption because the regulators get to pick and choose who to regulate instead of universally applicable law.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What's stopping the next administration from doing the same?
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      > I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. Yes, we trust regulators to regulate effectively and not to single out companies when they do things the president doesn’t like. > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. How is the prior administration’s policy to towards race and gender in any way relevant to this administration’s policy towards one tech company? > What's stopping the next administration from doing the same? Well, if this action results in a drop in public approval of the administration, the next administration is probably not going to be incentivized to do it. Further, this line of questioning provides zero substance as you could ask that question of any scenario. “It’s OK now because no one will be stopped from doing it in the future” is not a valid argument.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What do you mean when you say this?

Simulacra 6y ago

Think about the leverage Twitter already has! If Twitter wanted to, and not saying they haven't, they could easily sway an election, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Surely you can find a better reason than simply saying this is fascist.

save_ferris 6y ago
Could Twitter sway an election? Maybe, but it’s speculative. This move is concrete and would give the president the power to go to any tech company and say “do as I wish or I will gut you” in no uncertain terms. This is classic power consolidation and is a core strategy of fascist regimes. I’m in no way being hyperbolic here. I’m not Twitter doesn’t deserve to be regulated, because they do. However, choosing to conditionally regulate companies this way is a great way to fuel corruption because the regulators get to pick and choose who to regulate instead of universally applicable law.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What's stopping the next administration from doing the same?
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    > I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. Yes, we trust regulators to regulate effectively and not to single out companies when they do things the president doesn’t like. > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. How is the prior administration’s policy to towards race and gender in any way relevant to this administration’s policy towards one tech company? > What's stopping the next administration from doing the same? Well, if this action results in a drop in public approval of the administration, the next administration is probably not going to be incentivized to do it. Further, this line of questioning provides zero substance as you could ask that question of any scenario. “It’s OK now because no one will be stopped from doing it in the future” is not a valid argument.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What do you mean when you say this?