5 ms·
> Your right to shout doesn't override my right to not have to listen to you. So don't "follow" him? You know, that thing you do on Twitter to "listen" to peop
by disgrunt 6y ago
> Your right to shout doesn't override my right to not have to listen to you.
So don't "follow" him? You know, that thing you do on Twitter to "listen" to people?
- starfallg 6y agoOr give you my platform to shout from. You missed this part.
- sthnblllII 6y agoTwitter is not "your platform". It exists because almost the whole country uses it. Therefore, not just corporate executives, but the whole nation should decide what speech is allowed, and we already have! Speech in privately-owned public spaces like Twitter is governed by the First Amendment to the constitution. https://jcalebjones.com/2020/10/15/the-first-amendment-and-company-towns/ https://jcalebjones.com/2020/10/15/the-first-amendment-and-c...
- starfallg 6y agoTwitter is a private company. It's their platform. You use it under their terms. You can't force them to let you use their platform.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> Twitter is a private company. Twitter is a publicly traded company, they agreed to abide by some restrictions by the government in order to get that status.
- shadowgovt 6y agoNone of those restrictions are relevant to the question of who may and may not use their service.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThey are relevant to the concept that they give up certain private property rights in order to gain other legal privileges, which is a precedent for requiring that they give up other property rights (such as the right to censor on the basis of politics, etc.).
- starfallg 6y agoProperty rights are completely irrelevant to the discussion on hand. 'Right to censor' is a made up concept. Companies and individuals have no obligation to publish something they do not agree with. Anti-discrimination laws also do not protect Trump here. He isn't singled out for his race, sex or religion. He's singled out because he incited a seditious mob that overran Congress.
- fumar 6y agoDo believe publicly traded companies are the same as state or federal public entities that serve the public via taxes? I recommend you look up the difference.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI'm aware of the difference, how does that impact the understanding that publicly traded companies have waived certain rights in exchange for certain legal privileges?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gd1 6y agoWe know. People are trying to have a discussion about what ought to be, not what is. You're contributing nothing.
- cthalupa 6y ago>It exists because almost the whole country uses it. Simply not true. Roughly 1/10th of the US uses twitter actively. [1] Even if everyone did use it, it's still a private platform owned by a company. Not the government. That means the company gets to run it. Which is it? Do you want the federal government to stay out of shit, or do you want it to micromanage things? What's your stance on section 230? Without it, they would have been forced to ban Trump years ago. [1] https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/ https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/
- disgrunt 6y agoIs that you, Jack?