11 ms·

Disagree that presidential power should bleed into private companies. He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side.

save_ferris 6y ago
> He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side. I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. That's a pretty significant lever to have over POTUS. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
- omarchowdhury 6y ago
  > Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. The threat would be a criminal offense.
  - geomark 6y ago
    Threatening to deplatform is a criminal offense? What a world we live in.
    - omarchowdhury 6y ago
      No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense. > where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something
      - salawat 6y ago
        Out of curiosity, what do you think makes it illegal: the coercive aspect, or that it's aimed at POTUS?
        omarchowdhury 6y ago
        Both. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-610.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  In that case, the President will hold a press conference and ger coverage from every TV and YouTubel Channel and Facebook page, not to mention tens of thousands of Twitter users.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  I am pretty sure Dorsey could just impersonate the account and post or remove whatever. No need for threats.
the_drunkard 6y ago
>he broke it how did he break the contract with Twitter? the tweets twitter references hardly seem to encourage mob violence. twitter subjectively interprets their own set of rules and it's clear there's a double standard. when politicians on the left encourage protests and riots that result in the destruction and burning of private property, there are no repercussions. and i'm not attempting to say that two wrongs make a right; encouraging violence or mobs is wrong, but Twitter's enforcement of their own rules is clearly influenced by political ideology.

save_ferris 6y ago

> He entered into a contract with Twitter, broke it, and Twitter ended things on their side. I agree, and I'm not saying that Twitter acted in the wrong here. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. That's a pretty significant lever to have over POTUS. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

omarchowdhury 6y ago
> Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something under penalty of deplatforming. The threat would be a criminal offense.
- geomark 6y ago
  Threatening to deplatform is a criminal offense? What a world we live in.
  - omarchowdhury 6y ago
    No, coercion of the POTUS is the criminal offense. > where Dorsey threatens a president to say or not say something
    - salawat 6y ago
      Out of curiosity, what do you think makes it illegal: the coercive aspect, or that it's aimed at POTUS?
      - omarchowdhury 6y ago
        Both. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-610.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
alisonkisk 6y ago
In that case, the President will hold a press conference and ger coverage from every TV and YouTubel Channel and Facebook page, not to mention tens of thousands of Twitter users.
daniellarusso 6y ago
I am pretty sure Dorsey could just impersonate the account and post or remove whatever. No need for threats.

the_drunkard 6y ago

>he broke it how did he break the contract with Twitter? the tweets twitter references hardly seem to encourage mob violence. twitter subjectively interprets their own set of rules and it's clear there's a double standard. when politicians on the left encourage protests and riots that result in the destruction and burning of private property, there are no repercussions. and i'm not attempting to say that two wrongs make a right; encouraging violence or mobs is wrong, but Twitter's enforcement of their own rules is clearly influenced by political ideology.