5 ms·

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to secu

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Why do you conflate any discussion of censorship and freedom of speech with the First Amendment of the US’s constitution?

casefields 6y ago
The folks that are pro-private company censorship always do that. It's the only way their argument works so they have to avoid the nuance that free speech has a law and a principle. It's constant to read opinions like that in threads like this. We used to have this argument in the 60s where private businesses argued they didn't have to serve blacks since they were a private business. Political speech/activity is protected when it comes to labor law. It's not hard to see the law updated at some figure point. Discrimination is discrimination in my book, and free speech is paramount even the most repugnant opinions.
- jpsalm 6y ago
  Twitter suspending/banning for violations of policy is discrimination in the same way barkeeps throwing unruly patrons out of the bar is discrimination.
  - yanderekko 6y ago
    Depends on the policy. Obviously harassing or obscene speech is one thing and even the government is free to restrict it in certain ways (eg. you're not allowed to scream obscenities in public.) Viewpoint-based discrimination is given much more scrutiny, however, and there's a good argument that that's what Twitter et. al are engaging in. Which is less like "throwing unruly patrons out" and more like "calling people whose ideas you dislike unruly and then throwing them out", which is obviously discriminatory.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > there's a good argument that that's what Twitter et. al are engaging in. Is there? Who's making it? Can you give examples?
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Only if the barkeep walks past a hundred other patrons at least as unruly as that one patron is, and the barkeep's history suggest he's spending most of his time focusing on the unruly patrons that he disagrees with politically. All while his policies and public statements claim otherwise.
    - jpsalm 6y ago
      > ction fees cannot support the mining hardware as is, miners sell of their hardware to recoup their costs and the chain becomes vulnerable. I mean unless you are logging this and charting it I'm going to assume people are seeing whatever is confirming their priors on this one.
jayd16 6y ago
The freedom of the platform holder and the platform user are at odds. The topic does not need to focus on government or the US constitution.
- alentist 6y ago
  > The topic does not need to focus on government or the US constitution. Exactly.
8note 6y ago
Because for you to see something on twitter, twitter has to repeat what they said. Forcing twitter to quote trump would be coerced speach rather than free speech. Otherwise, I'm censoring trump right now my not putting his tweet content in this comment, and so are you because you didn't put it in yours
- cm2187 6y ago
  So then I guess McCarthyism was completely ok. Why would Hollywood be compelled to hire leftist sympathisers, and let then disseminate their ideas through their productions.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So then I guess McCarthyism was completely ok. Are you under the impression that the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations is a private entity?

casefields 6y ago

The folks that are pro-private company censorship always do that. It's the only way their argument works so they have to avoid the nuance that free speech has a law and a principle. It's constant to read opinions like that in threads like this. We used to have this argument in the 60s where private businesses argued they didn't have to serve blacks since they were a private business. Political speech/activity is protected when it comes to labor law. It's not hard to see the law updated at some figure point. Discrimination is discrimination in my book, and free speech is paramount even the most repugnant opinions.

jpsalm 6y ago
Twitter suspending/banning for violations of policy is discrimination in the same way barkeeps throwing unruly patrons out of the bar is discrimination.
- yanderekko 6y ago
  Depends on the policy. Obviously harassing or obscene speech is one thing and even the government is free to restrict it in certain ways (eg. you're not allowed to scream obscenities in public.) Viewpoint-based discrimination is given much more scrutiny, however, and there's a good argument that that's what Twitter et. al are engaging in. Which is less like "throwing unruly patrons out" and more like "calling people whose ideas you dislike unruly and then throwing them out", which is obviously discriminatory.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > there's a good argument that that's what Twitter et. al are engaging in. Is there? Who's making it? Can you give examples?
- moduspol 6y ago
  Only if the barkeep walks past a hundred other patrons at least as unruly as that one patron is, and the barkeep's history suggest he's spending most of his time focusing on the unruly patrons that he disagrees with politically. All while his policies and public statements claim otherwise.
  - jpsalm 6y ago
    > ction fees cannot support the mining hardware as is, miners sell of their hardware to recoup their costs and the chain becomes vulnerable. I mean unless you are logging this and charting it I'm going to assume people are seeing whatever is confirming their priors on this one.

jayd16 6y ago

The freedom of the platform holder and the platform user are at odds. The topic does not need to focus on government or the US constitution.

alentist 6y ago
> The topic does not need to focus on government or the US constitution. Exactly.

8note 6y ago

Because for you to see something on twitter, twitter has to repeat what they said. Forcing twitter to quote trump would be coerced speach rather than free speech. Otherwise, I'm censoring trump right now my not putting his tweet content in this comment, and so are you because you didn't put it in yours

cm2187 6y ago
So then I guess McCarthyism was completely ok. Why would Hollywood be compelled to hire leftist sympathisers, and let then disseminate their ideas through their productions.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So then I guess McCarthyism was completely ok. Are you under the impression that the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations is a private entity?