12 ms·

>The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. >There's nothing special about govern

>The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. >There's nothing special about governments with regard to freedom of speech except that it has always been assumed governments are the only entities with enough individual power to significantly restrict free speech. The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property. The government can. It's an extraordinary power wielded exclusively by the government. Consider this: If you think Twitter should be restrained from censoring their platform because the extent of their power is on par with the government, who will enforce any violations of that restraint?

_qulr 6y ago
> The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property. I specifically said I was talking about freedom of speech. There are many different kinds of freedom, and these aren't specifically free speech issues.
- valar_m 6y ago
  The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. If the government can't enforce the law by putting you in prison or seizing your property, the entire issue is moot.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mopsi 6y ago
    > The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. There are more ways to control participation in public discourse than imprisonment and seizures of printing presses. Times have moved on. Instead of imprisonment, we have banning and filtering, with no independent oversight or appeal process. Twitter, Facebook, and a few other companies can do more to restrict the spread of certain information than most governments in the world have ever been able, so why shouldn't at least the same standard apply to them? Their virtual town squares are nowadays larger than any square ever under government control, and they have absolute control over who can and cannot participate. They are the absolute monarchies of 21st century, more powerful than ever.

_qulr 6y ago

> The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property. I specifically said I was talking about freedom of speech. There are many different kinds of freedom, and these aren't specifically free speech issues.

valar_m 6y ago
The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. If the government can't enforce the law by putting you in prison or seizing your property, the entire issue is moot.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mopsi 6y ago
  > The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. There are more ways to control participation in public discourse than imprisonment and seizures of printing presses. Times have moved on. Instead of imprisonment, we have banning and filtering, with no independent oversight or appeal process. Twitter, Facebook, and a few other companies can do more to restrict the spread of certain information than most governments in the world have ever been able, so why shouldn't at least the same standard apply to them? Their virtual town squares are nowadays larger than any square ever under government control, and they have absolute control over who can and cannot participate. They are the absolute monarchies of 21st century, more powerful than ever.