4 ms·

Twitter might not be the government but it surely is an institution that has a significant amount of power and influence on society. So much so that I think the

Twitter might not be the government but it surely is an institution that has a significant amount of power and influence on society. So much so that I think the public should pressure them to adhere to liberal values like free speech and rightly get upset if they dont. And regarding the fact that conspiracy theorists arent an ethnic group, sure thats right they are not. They are still an ideological group. Are we committed to making a society that works for a diverse range of ideological groups or do we have to fit inside the box of what Jack Dorsey thinks is normal to participate in society? I think the american value of right to pursue happens means powerful institutions should be extremely careful before judging some group as not being normal or fit for society. Or I guess we can give up these values because now we dont like the results.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you. If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation. But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression of speech. I highly value the right of any entity to express their speech the way that see fit. That includes Twitter's right to kick people off their platform. I don't agree with the weaponization of "free speech" and liberal values that is common among certain groups, as it is used to quell criticism. When you start weaponizing your "free speech" as a way to constrain others, you are no longer reflecting liberal values.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  To further add to this, for fuck sake without twitter you'd be de-platformed from the get go, because there's nothing else like it. It literally democratized the ability to be heard on a national stage - so even peons/non-celebrities have at least a marginal voice. It's not a human right, a societal right, or any other kind of right. It's a privilege, act like a douche, lose the privilege like every forum before it on the internet. Even this one (Hackernews). Here's a good solution: Don't post hate speech or mis-leading fake news about a pandemic that could cost people their lives, then keep your platform and your voice. I mean, you can go pretty far left or right on Twitter before you get banned, already.
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  It's actually asinine that you are defending censorship. Take a moment to think about that. I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. Perhaps scientific journals should feel free to suppress research that doesnt toe their political line and lets have journalists... well that ones already a joke. Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending. Its unreal that this has to be said.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I absolutely support certain kinds of censorship, yes. You do too (for example, I expect you support Youtube's right to keep pornogrophy off it's platform). That you draw the line on how private entities choose to interact in a different place than I do doesn't make you more righteous. > I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. I certainly hope there are certain ideas that Harvard bans. They certainly ban specific forms of research. That's why we have IRBs, because people, when free to research any topic without any oversight, did awful things to other people. > Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending No. I have no responsibility to assist you in publishing drivel, and the idea that I or anyone else has a moral responsibility to help you publish drivel is nonsense. Much as I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, I also have a right to not help you spread your message. To deny that is a perversion of the right of free expression.

joshuamorton 6y ago

Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you. If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation. But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression of speech. I highly value the right of any entity to express their speech the way that see fit. That includes Twitter's right to kick people off their platform. I don't agree with the weaponization of "free speech" and liberal values that is common among certain groups, as it is used to quell criticism. When you start weaponizing your "free speech" as a way to constrain others, you are no longer reflecting liberal values.

gremlinsinc 6y ago
To further add to this, for fuck sake without twitter you'd be de-platformed from the get go, because there's nothing else like it. It literally democratized the ability to be heard on a national stage - so even peons/non-celebrities have at least a marginal voice. It's not a human right, a societal right, or any other kind of right. It's a privilege, act like a douche, lose the privilege like every forum before it on the internet. Even this one (Hackernews). Here's a good solution: Don't post hate speech or mis-leading fake news about a pandemic that could cost people their lives, then keep your platform and your voice. I mean, you can go pretty far left or right on Twitter before you get banned, already.
TearsInTheRain 6y ago
It's actually asinine that you are defending censorship. Take a moment to think about that. I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. Perhaps scientific journals should feel free to suppress research that doesnt toe their political line and lets have journalists... well that ones already a joke. Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending. Its unreal that this has to be said.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I absolutely support certain kinds of censorship, yes. You do too (for example, I expect you support Youtube's right to keep pornogrophy off it's platform). That you draw the line on how private entities choose to interact in a different place than I do doesn't make you more righteous. > I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. I certainly hope there are certain ideas that Harvard bans. They certainly ban specific forms of research. That's why we have IRBs, because people, when free to research any topic without any oversight, did awful things to other people. > Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending No. I have no responsibility to assist you in publishing drivel, and the idea that I or anyone else has a moral responsibility to help you publish drivel is nonsense. Much as I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, I also have a right to not help you spread your message. To deny that is a perversion of the right of free expression.