4 ms·

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too. In other words, they can't censor as they

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too. In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

patagurbon 6y ago
>they can't censor as they are. Yes >A private company cannot censor No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > No. But you said "Yes" two lines above. > They are common carriers. These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities. > Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not. I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I only responded to the assertion that all "non government entities" can censor. I was providing proof that some non government entities cannot censor.
  - NwmG 6y ago
    They can indeed censor, I think what the prior poster was saying is that if they choose to censor, their regulation changes.
    - dntbnmpls 6y ago
      That's not how it works. They can't censor. It's why they don't. Can you show me anyone who has been #Canceled from their phone service? Ever wonder why nobody demanded Harvey Weinstein or Trump lose their phone numbers? Because they can't do it. If AT&T wants to censor, they have to go find other business. They can't be in the telephone business and censor. It's a lawsuit and possible jail for the execs involved. People are so desperate to justify censorship that they'll make up nonsense. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe all the pro-censorship nonsense in my thread. The only explanation is bias once again forcing people to make up and accept nonsense.

4 ms·

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too. In other words, they can't censor as they

by dntbnmpls 6y ago

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too. In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

patagurbon 6y ago
>they can't censor as they are. Yes >A private company cannot censor No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > No. But you said "Yes" two lines above. > They are common carriers. These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities. > Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not. I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I only responded to the assertion that all "non government entities" can censor. I was providing proof that some non government entities cannot censor.
  - NwmG 6y ago
    They can indeed censor, I think what the prior poster was saying is that if they choose to censor, their regulation changes.
    - dntbnmpls 6y ago
      That's not how it works. They can't censor. It's why they don't. Can you show me anyone who has been #Canceled from their phone service? Ever wonder why nobody demanded Harvey Weinstein or Trump lose their phone numbers? Because they can't do it. If AT&T wants to censor, they have to go find other business. They can't be in the telephone business and censor. It's a lawsuit and possible jail for the execs involved. People are so desperate to justify censorship that they'll make up nonsense. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe all the pro-censorship nonsense in my thread. The only explanation is bias once again forcing people to make up and accept nonsense.