4 ms·
They ruled that elected politicians cannot block individuals from participating in the replies to their tweets because they deemed it was the equivalent of a pu
by AndrewGaspar 6y ago
They ruled that elected politicians cannot block individuals from participating in the replies to their tweets because they deemed it was the equivalent of a public space. They didn't rule that Twitter couldn't themselves moderate who posts on the platform.
- trhway 6y ago> they deemed it was the equivalent of a public space. Then how Twitter is allowed to moderate who posts on "the equivalent of a public space"? By banning a user Twitter blocks the user from participating in such a public space.
- belltaco 6y agoBecause the law restricts government officials from banning interactions from the public, not private companies doing that on their private property.
- trhway 6y agoSounds like a loophole if the government official uses a friendly private space. I think private space should lose such an ability to the extent where it is being "deputized" that way for the government official. Thus even banned accounts must be allowed to interact with Trump for example (as long as the accounts stays in the legal space of course).
- shadowgovt 6y ago> sounds like a loophole That is not uncommon in the effects of the law overlapped with court rulings. If nobody has tried to challenge the loophole directly in court, then the law is mute on how it would interpret the situation faced with a contradiction.