3 ms·

arbitrarily inject warning labels on Trump tweets while ignoring anti-cop tweets calling for violence and destruction It's not arbitrary for twitter to impose

by harryh 6y ago

arbitrarily inject warning labels on Trump tweets while ignoring anti-cop tweets calling for violence and destruction It's not arbitrary for twitter to impose a higher level of scrutiny on @realDonaldTrump (~83M followers) than on accounts from non-famous people with a very small number of followers. It actively hates, demeans and silences the right. Trump: 83 million followers McConnell: 7.1 million Ted Cruz: 3.7 million Ben Shapiro: 2.8 million Tucker Carlson: 3.6 million @GOP: 2.4 million This is what silencing looks like?

chrisco255 6y ago
Excuse me, if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers there's no email fact checking injection ministry of truth at the IMAP layer of the protocol. If 83 million people choose to follow Trump, then Twitter really has no arbitrary say. They really are breaking their social contract and section 230 protection and they're becoming an editorial force with the power to shape public opinion as they exercise that. Just as it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages, it is a step too far for Twitter to inject their opinion and arbitrarily target conservatives. They deserve all the hell they are going to get for this approach. I fully support breaking them up or suing them out of existence. Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control.
- harryh 6y ago
  if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers Yes, if Trump builds his own newsletter he is free to do what he wants. But when he's posting on someone else's platform, he's subject to their rules. Welcome to how the world works! They really are breaking...section 230 protection This off repeated talking point is wrong as a matter of law. There's a reason that all kinds of people have made this claim but never actually initiated any legal proceedings. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. You might want to read this explainer (from a conservative lawyer) explaining how this law actually works: https://thedispatch.com/p/section-230-donald-trump-vs-twitter https://thedispatch.com/p/section-230-donald-trump-vs-twitte... it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages Tweets aren't private communication. It's a broadcast medium subject to far different rules. Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control. Freedom of speech isn't under attack. Trump can say whatever he wants. He has one of the most powerful (figurative) megaphones in the world. A couple of small editorial comments on a single website, even a popular one, will not meaningfully reduce his (or anyone else's) ability to have their say. You say that Twitter shouldn't be able to express its own editorial opinion. It's actually that point of view that attacks free speech.

by harryh 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

Excuse me, if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers there's no email fact checking injection ministry of truth at the IMAP layer of the protocol. If 83 million people choose to follow Trump, then Twitter really has no arbitrary say. They really are breaking their social contract and section 230 protection and they're becoming an editorial force with the power to shape public opinion as they exercise that. Just as it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages, it is a step too far for Twitter to inject their opinion and arbitrarily target conservatives. They deserve all the hell they are going to get for this approach. I fully support breaking them up or suing them out of existence. Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control.

harryh 6y ago
if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers Yes, if Trump builds his own newsletter he is free to do what he wants. But when he's posting on someone else's platform, he's subject to their rules. Welcome to how the world works! They really are breaking...section 230 protection This off repeated talking point is wrong as a matter of law. There's a reason that all kinds of people have made this claim but never actually initiated any legal proceedings. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on. You might want to read this explainer (from a conservative lawyer) explaining how this law actually works: https://thedispatch.com/p/section-230-donald-trump-vs-twitter https://thedispatch.com/p/section-230-donald-trump-vs-twitte... it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages Tweets aren't private communication. It's a broadcast medium subject to far different rules. Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control. Freedom of speech isn't under attack. Trump can say whatever he wants. He has one of the most powerful (figurative) megaphones in the world. A couple of small editorial comments on a single website, even a popular one, will not meaningfully reduce his (or anyone else's) ability to have their say. You say that Twitter shouldn't be able to express its own editorial opinion. It's actually that point of view that attacks free speech.