3 ms·

I don't see how I am forcing you as a person to say a damn thing. You've entered into a new level of tactical nihilism here. > you’re saying that I have the ri

I don't see how I am forcing you as a person to say a damn thing. You've entered into a new level of tactical nihilism here. > you’re saying that I have the right to go to your home, plaster it with posters that you disagree with, then prevent you from removing them. How is your personal home the same thing as a gigantic, billion-user social network that has effectively (especially in 2020) replaced the pub, the bar, the town square, and the public forum? It's not, and you know it isn't. Step back and look at yourself: you're defending the right of billion dollar corporations to tell you what you can and cannot say. > Does that sound like free speech to you?

throwaway894345 6y ago
> How is your personal home the same thing as a gigantic, billion-user social network that has effectively (especially in 2020) replaced the pub, the bar, the town square, and the public forum? It's not, and you know it isn't. I think the scale is a good point (no idea what your original post contained since it was flagged before I read it). Twitter and a handful of other social media companies handle (by which I mean "choose who gets to see what content") such an enormous volume of speech that its moderation policies can influence elections and therefore public policy. Moreover, their power is inherently anti-competitive--users can't take their network to another platform because these platforms don't interoperate by design. It seems like this is an antitrust issue, especially since these networks tend to lobby together to protect their interests.