4 ms·

Twitter is for all intensive purposes a walled garden run by a dictator. There is no accountability because it’s a private (albeit public) company.

Eddy_Viscosity2 6y ago
Exactly. It seems to me that the people that are most in favor of de-regulating businesses are the ones that are most upset when they themselves are screwed over by a company that has little to no regulatory oversight. I think there actually should be laws that prevent the big tech companies from unilaterally banning or suspending accounts without reasonable cause and without reasonable recourse/compensation if they were wrong to do so. But that won't happen.
- krapp 6y ago
  >I think there actually should be laws that prevent the big tech companies from unilaterally banning or suspending accounts without reasonable cause and without reasonable recourse/compensation if they were wrong to do so. The thing is, everyone with an account on Twitter agreed to its terms of service beforehand. You want the government to punish social media platforms for doing what they explicitly stated in print they claimed the right to do, and what their users agreed to let them do, in exchange for using the service.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 6y ago
    Firsly, regulation isn't the same as punishment. It's a very necessary part of how the economy works. Secondly, "agree" is a strong term for what actually happens with terms of service. What really happens is that people are forced to accept them or else. Since there is no other option, people rarely even read them. Why bother, especially when they can unilaterally be changed at any time. The power imbalance between big monopolistic companies and regular customers is just too vast to even suggest that TOS are some sort of negotiated "agreement". Lastly, even if you take the no-regulation, TOS are binding, standpoint, the article is about Twitter not even following its own policies and guidelines. That his main beef. That twitter isn't even following its own rules and still there isn't anything that can be done.

Eddy_Viscosity2 6y ago

Exactly. It seems to me that the people that are most in favor of de-regulating businesses are the ones that are most upset when they themselves are screwed over by a company that has little to no regulatory oversight. I think there actually should be laws that prevent the big tech companies from unilaterally banning or suspending accounts without reasonable cause and without reasonable recourse/compensation if they were wrong to do so. But that won't happen.

krapp 6y ago
>I think there actually should be laws that prevent the big tech companies from unilaterally banning or suspending accounts without reasonable cause and without reasonable recourse/compensation if they were wrong to do so. The thing is, everyone with an account on Twitter agreed to its terms of service beforehand. You want the government to punish social media platforms for doing what they explicitly stated in print they claimed the right to do, and what their users agreed to let them do, in exchange for using the service.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 6y ago
  Firsly, regulation isn't the same as punishment. It's a very necessary part of how the economy works. Secondly, "agree" is a strong term for what actually happens with terms of service. What really happens is that people are forced to accept them or else. Since there is no other option, people rarely even read them. Why bother, especially when they can unilaterally be changed at any time. The power imbalance between big monopolistic companies and regular customers is just too vast to even suggest that TOS are some sort of negotiated "agreement". Lastly, even if you take the no-regulation, TOS are binding, standpoint, the article is about Twitter not even following its own policies and guidelines. That his main beef. That twitter isn't even following its own rules and still there isn't anything that can be done.