5 ms·

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

komali2 6y ago
> supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses. Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.
akersten 6y ago
I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m not personally concerned with the rights of private businesses as much as I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of expanding government power. And yes, that is a new position for me. These past few years have been quite the education about the downsides of federal power as a liberal.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Be careful not to allow yourself to be identified as a libertarian. That will get you ostracized by both sides, almost violently so. The only thing both sides agree on is that they don't have anywhere near enough input in your life.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  This probably has to do with the publisher vs platform debate. That means it is not about expanding government power but removing protections that the government granted to corporations.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I’ve been over this before. Unless if you’re going to eliminate the ability for Twitter to moderate any protected speech, then this is an expansion of government power. This would give someone in the government the ability to determine what protected speech is immune from Twitter moderation, and what protected speech is not. This is a massive expansion of government power, and turns a two tier speech system (protected or not) into a three tier one.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      Can you clarify what you mean? There is already protected speech. You can say whatever you want as long as its not libel, treason, direct threats, etc. Twitter has a TOC that is not strictly based on protected speech. They ban people / censor people all the time who violate their TOC but do not violate the law. Also, it is not going to be certain speech that is protected but certain companies. Its possible Twitter would not have protection but Facebook could.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        The core premise of the arguments being raised is that Twitter is being politically biased (citation needed), and that something should be done to make Twitter politically neutral since Twitter is such an important faux public square. The problem is enforcement. How exactly will we make Twitter be politically neutral? There are two basic ways: you either eliminate Twitter’s ability to moderate at all, or someone has to define what speech is immune from moderation in the name of political neutrality. The former is disastrous for the quality of these platforms. All kinds of anti-social and unpleasant behavior is protected speech, as is pornography and violent material. I think we can all agree that Twitter is within its rights to say “no porn here”, so we don’t want to set the bar at protected speech. If we decide that twitter can moderate some but not all protected speech, then someone must legally define what protected speech is immune from moderation, and what protected speech is not. This represents an expansion of government power, as you’re giving the government the power to decide what types of protected speech is more important than other types of protected speech.
creato 6y ago
Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?
- uberduper 6y ago
  Depends what they're doing with those rights. See Citizens United vs FEC.
- orblivion 6y ago
  Broadly speaking no, but I don't recall them often being on that side of a given debate.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Colorado bakery. Yes, they're opposed to private businesses having rights, when it conflicts with something they consider more socially necessary.
- gilbetron 6y ago
  Exactly, progressives are ok with business right (which often translate to individual rights), just against businesses having all of the rights.

Some of them disagree with this thankfully. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

komali2 6y ago

> supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses. Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.

akersten 6y ago

I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.

ashtonkem 6y ago

I’m not personally concerned with the rights of private businesses as much as I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of expanding government power. And yes, that is a new position for me. These past few years have been quite the education about the downsides of federal power as a liberal.

CamperBob2 6y ago
Be careful not to allow yourself to be identified as a libertarian. That will get you ostracized by both sides, almost violently so. The only thing both sides agree on is that they don't have anywhere near enough input in your life.
_-david-_ 6y ago
This probably has to do with the publisher vs platform debate. That means it is not about expanding government power but removing protections that the government granted to corporations.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’ve been over this before. Unless if you’re going to eliminate the ability for Twitter to moderate any protected speech, then this is an expansion of government power. This would give someone in the government the ability to determine what protected speech is immune from Twitter moderation, and what protected speech is not. This is a massive expansion of government power, and turns a two tier speech system (protected or not) into a three tier one.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean? There is already protected speech. You can say whatever you want as long as its not libel, treason, direct threats, etc. Twitter has a TOC that is not strictly based on protected speech. They ban people / censor people all the time who violate their TOC but do not violate the law. Also, it is not going to be certain speech that is protected but certain companies. Its possible Twitter would not have protection but Facebook could.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      The core premise of the arguments being raised is that Twitter is being politically biased (citation needed), and that something should be done to make Twitter politically neutral since Twitter is such an important faux public square. The problem is enforcement. How exactly will we make Twitter be politically neutral? There are two basic ways: you either eliminate Twitter’s ability to moderate at all, or someone has to define what speech is immune from moderation in the name of political neutrality. The former is disastrous for the quality of these platforms. All kinds of anti-social and unpleasant behavior is protected speech, as is pornography and violent material. I think we can all agree that Twitter is within its rights to say “no porn here”, so we don’t want to set the bar at protected speech. If we decide that twitter can moderate some but not all protected speech, then someone must legally define what protected speech is immune from moderation, and what protected speech is not. This represents an expansion of government power, as you’re giving the government the power to decide what types of protected speech is more important than other types of protected speech.

creato 6y ago

Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?

uberduper 6y ago
Depends what they're doing with those rights. See Citizens United vs FEC.
orblivion 6y ago
Broadly speaking no, but I don't recall them often being on that side of a given debate.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Colorado bakery. Yes, they're opposed to private businesses having rights, when it conflicts with something they consider more socially necessary.
gilbetron 6y ago
Exactly, progressives are ok with business right (which often translate to individual rights), just against businesses having all of the rights.