4 ms·

The idea that Twitter or Facebook are forced to be the propoagators of anyone's speech is false. Instead, all users are subject to the same EULA and TOS, and li

The idea that Twitter or Facebook are forced to be the propoagators of anyone's speech is false. Instead, all users are subject to the same EULA and TOS, and likewise, are judged in terms of the content they post, not their political leanings. If you owned a website that allowed public postings, would you ever consider yourself obligated to protect a member of the government's speech in a way you do not for a normal user? Also, you can hardly call it a MITM attack when they are specifically announcing their policy. Your usage of that term implies an underhanded policy designed to hide their intentions and actions. This is clearly not the case.

imgabe 6y ago
Excuse me if I think it's a little more important that the public is informed about what elected officials are saying than it is to respect Twitter and Facebook's EULA and TOS where they say they can sell my firstborn to the highest bidder if it helps meet their quarterly numbers. If the President of the United States is saying something, it is my right and duty to hear exactly what that is, verbatim, so I can appropriately participate in our democracy. It is not at all acceptable for Twitter, Facebook, or any other third party to intercede and decide for me that what they said was good or bad. That is my decision to make. The fact that so many people here are willing and eager to cede that authority to faceless, unaccountable corporations is frankly appalling. >If you owned a website that allowed public postings, would you ever consider yourself obligated to protect a member of the government's speech in a way you do not for a normal user? That's an excellent point. This freedom of speech should indeed extend to everyone, not just government officials.
- turndown 6y ago
  >If the President of the United States is saying something, it is my right and duty to hear exactly what that is, verbatim, so I can appropriately participate in our democracy. Sure, you do have that right, it is only that it is not the responsibility of Twitter or Facebook to be the avenue through which the President communicates. Twitter and Facebook have, in my opinion, already bent over backwards trying to let the President say what he wished. The events yesterday basically forced them to make a policy decision: Protect the free speech of a person dangerous to our democracy, who will no longer be in power in a few weeks, or simply wash their hands of him? I am sure it is not too difficult to make a choice given the options. And in addition to all of this, why in God's name, if I did support your belief in a private corporation's obligaiton to run a private enterprise as a public institution, would I try to protect the President when he has done everything he can to cause __the exact__ incidents that Twitter and Facebook are explicitly denouncing his statements for inciting & supporting?
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Today they're silencing the President in the name of preventing violence (highly questionable whether this achieves that goal with respect to a mob of people who believe there is a conspiracy among the media to silence them). Tomorrow maybe a Senator who calls for an antitrust investigation into Twitter or who questions labor practices at Amazon finds themselves mysteriously silenced for "hate speech". When it happens, just remember it was what you wanted.
    - turndown 6y ago
      A Trump supported trying to talk to me about the importance of precedent? That'll be the day, that'll be the day. You don't get to support a person who has flouted every precedent they could find in their four years in office and then turn around and act as if you care, or even know the definition of, the word precdent.
nullc 6y ago
Do you know what happens if you let your neighbour cross through your property for 30 years to get access to the back of their property? Claiming that all users are subject to the same rules might have had some merit if he were suspended years ago. I don't know if I'd really go so far as to say that trump has an easement at this point, but it's not an entirely absurd position. Moreover, if you actually look at the content they removed I don't think it's by any means an obvious violation of their TOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668883 -- it's certainly less so than plenty of content which they leave up on the site.

imgabe 6y ago

Excuse me if I think it's a little more important that the public is informed about what elected officials are saying than it is to respect Twitter and Facebook's EULA and TOS where they say they can sell my firstborn to the highest bidder if it helps meet their quarterly numbers. If the President of the United States is saying something, it is my right and duty to hear exactly what that is, verbatim, so I can appropriately participate in our democracy. It is not at all acceptable for Twitter, Facebook, or any other third party to intercede and decide for me that what they said was good or bad. That is my decision to make. The fact that so many people here are willing and eager to cede that authority to faceless, unaccountable corporations is frankly appalling. >If you owned a website that allowed public postings, would you ever consider yourself obligated to protect a member of the government's speech in a way you do not for a normal user? That's an excellent point. This freedom of speech should indeed extend to everyone, not just government officials.

turndown 6y ago
>If the President of the United States is saying something, it is my right and duty to hear exactly what that is, verbatim, so I can appropriately participate in our democracy. Sure, you do have that right, it is only that it is not the responsibility of Twitter or Facebook to be the avenue through which the President communicates. Twitter and Facebook have, in my opinion, already bent over backwards trying to let the President say what he wished. The events yesterday basically forced them to make a policy decision: Protect the free speech of a person dangerous to our democracy, who will no longer be in power in a few weeks, or simply wash their hands of him? I am sure it is not too difficult to make a choice given the options. And in addition to all of this, why in God's name, if I did support your belief in a private corporation's obligaiton to run a private enterprise as a public institution, would I try to protect the President when he has done everything he can to cause __the exact__ incidents that Twitter and Facebook are explicitly denouncing his statements for inciting & supporting?
- imgabe 6y ago
  Today they're silencing the President in the name of preventing violence (highly questionable whether this achieves that goal with respect to a mob of people who believe there is a conspiracy among the media to silence them). Tomorrow maybe a Senator who calls for an antitrust investigation into Twitter or who questions labor practices at Amazon finds themselves mysteriously silenced for "hate speech". When it happens, just remember it was what you wanted.
  - turndown 6y ago
    A Trump supported trying to talk to me about the importance of precedent? That'll be the day, that'll be the day. You don't get to support a person who has flouted every precedent they could find in their four years in office and then turn around and act as if you care, or even know the definition of, the word precdent.

nullc 6y ago

Do you know what happens if you let your neighbour cross through your property for 30 years to get access to the back of their property? Claiming that all users are subject to the same rules might have had some merit if he were suspended years ago. I don't know if I'd really go so far as to say that trump has an easement at this point, but it's not an entirely absurd position. Moreover, if you actually look at the content they removed I don't think it's by any means an obvious violation of their TOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668883 -- it's certainly less so than plenty of content which they leave up on the site.