3 ms·

"Free Speech doesn't mean that anyone has an obligation to listen" Quite. And those who have no obligation to listen include Facebook and Twitter. They are ab

"Free Speech doesn't mean that anyone has an obligation to listen" Quite. And those who have no obligation to listen include Facebook and Twitter. They are absolutely under no obligation to deliver any message you wish to send.

nullc 6y ago
You won't get much disagreement from me on that basis though I wish that was the reasoning they gave-- rather than the transparently false statements about leaked documents. I'm also dubious about applying that to private messages: Twitter isn't a party to those messages, interception of the content is an unlawful wiretap. Without unlawfully monitoring the content of the users private community it's not clear to me how they could be suppressing the content.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  They are free to do whatever they want with any message on their platform, private or public. If they were regulated as a common carrier, this would not be the case. I believe that Twitter and Facebook have no desire to be regulated as common carriers. There is no way this is an unlawful wiretap, as they own and operate the wires.
  - nullc 6y ago
    This is absolutely not true under federal law (18 U.S. Code § 2511.) (also apparently CA PC 631). It doesn't matter who owns the facilities. Except for certain narrow exceptions (warrants, government officers, jails, incidental operations necessary for maintenance) any unauthorized third party interception of a private communication is unlawful. Common carrier status is relevant for liability but is irrelevant for § 2511.
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      I think you are confusing a Twitter DM with a private communication. Note that Twitter is not intercepting your DMs, they are the ones transmitting and storing them.
legolas2412 6y ago
I believe they should be treated as a common utility, because this is what they are because of network effects. In that case, I think they would be under obligation to not silence people like this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nullc 6y ago

You won't get much disagreement from me on that basis though I wish that was the reasoning they gave-- rather than the transparently false statements about leaked documents. I'm also dubious about applying that to private messages: Twitter isn't a party to those messages, interception of the content is an unlawful wiretap. Without unlawfully monitoring the content of the users private community it's not clear to me how they could be suppressing the content.

andrewprock 6y ago
They are free to do whatever they want with any message on their platform, private or public. If they were regulated as a common carrier, this would not be the case. I believe that Twitter and Facebook have no desire to be regulated as common carriers. There is no way this is an unlawful wiretap, as they own and operate the wires.
- nullc 6y ago
  This is absolutely not true under federal law (18 U.S. Code § 2511.) (also apparently CA PC 631). It doesn't matter who owns the facilities. Except for certain narrow exceptions (warrants, government officers, jails, incidental operations necessary for maintenance) any unauthorized third party interception of a private communication is unlawful. Common carrier status is relevant for liability but is irrelevant for § 2511.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    I think you are confusing a Twitter DM with a private communication. Note that Twitter is not intercepting your DMs, they are the ones transmitting and storing them.

legolas2412 6y ago

I believe they should be treated as a common utility, because this is what they are because of network effects. In that case, I think they would be under obligation to not silence people like this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]