4 ms·

Twitter is a private sector business in the US with terms that include reserving the right to remove any content for any reason. They have every right to. If y

Twitter is a private sector business in the US with terms that include reserving the right to remove any content for any reason. They have every right to. If you don’t agree with it, for moral reasons or otherwise, you’re free to provide your own service.

andrewclunn 6y ago
Do you people just copy paste this exact comment, and replace "Twitter" with whatever social network, ISP, payment processor in question exists? Did you oppose the Civil Rights Act, which forced restaurants for example to serve blacks? Do you think there's anyone here who isn't aware that Twitter is a private company? You add nothing to the conversation when you do this, you just reiterate a neo-liberal talking point that even most self identifying libertarians disagree with now.
purplecats 6y ago
okay mr oligopolist
brighton36 6y ago
Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.
_-david-_ 6y ago
Parler tried to start their own service and look what is happening to them.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Parler would be fine if its members didn't consistently incite violence.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Are there a larger percentage of violent comments on Parler than Facebook or Twitter? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      I think frequency will be hard to prove right now, but when you have things like this, they are completely justified. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.: "Parler, the "free speech" social network, reportedly removed a post by Lin Wood, in which the pro-Trump lawyer threatened violence against Vice President Mike Pence. "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST," wrote Wood, according to Mediate. " https://news.yahoo.com/parler-removed-violent-mike-pence-170036626.html https://news.yahoo.com/parler-removed-violent-mike-pence-170...
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        I agree frequency is hard to prove but I think its important. If Twitter has a similar or higher frequency then they would also be guilty of consistently inciting violence as well and any person who is consistent should be trying to get Twitter pull off app stores. I can easily find tweets that are violent that stay up for weeks after being reported. It feels like Twitter is being held to a different standard than Parler and that is my issue.
bigpumpkin 6y ago
They sure have the right to. But I also have the right to criticize their decision.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be amended, just like the EU version of it was. Consider this precedent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This case is completely different and not relevant. Twitter has terms of service - that in and of itself is not equivalent to a sidewalk opened for all to use.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    You can look at phone companies then, for a similar example. It is illegal, due to common carrier laws, for a phone companies to engage in certain actions. They are actually forced to accept certain customers. These existing laws that apply to phone companies could be expanded to apply to other forms of communication networks.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      It's a bad example - phone conversations are relatively private and not meant for public consumption. If this was P2P messaging I'd agree. But that's not the case here.
- Negitivefrags 6y ago

andrewclunn 6y ago

Do you people just copy paste this exact comment, and replace "Twitter" with whatever social network, ISP, payment processor in question exists? Did you oppose the Civil Rights Act, which forced restaurants for example to serve blacks? Do you think there's anyone here who isn't aware that Twitter is a private company? You add nothing to the conversation when you do this, you just reiterate a neo-liberal talking point that even most self identifying libertarians disagree with now.

purplecats 6y ago

okay mr oligopolist

brighton36 6y ago

Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.

_-david-_ 6y ago

Parler tried to start their own service and look what is happening to them.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Parler would be fine if its members didn't consistently incite violence.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Are there a larger percentage of violent comments on Parler than Facebook or Twitter? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    I think frequency will be hard to prove right now, but when you have things like this, they are completely justified. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.: "Parler, the "free speech" social network, reportedly removed a post by Lin Wood, in which the pro-Trump lawyer threatened violence against Vice President Mike Pence. "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST," wrote Wood, according to Mediate. " https://news.yahoo.com/parler-removed-violent-mike-pence-170036626.html https://news.yahoo.com/parler-removed-violent-mike-pence-170...
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      I agree frequency is hard to prove but I think its important. If Twitter has a similar or higher frequency then they would also be guilty of consistently inciting violence as well and any person who is consistent should be trying to get Twitter pull off app stores. I can easily find tweets that are violent that stay up for weeks after being reported. It feels like Twitter is being held to a different standard than Parler and that is my issue.

bigpumpkin 6y ago

They sure have the right to. But I also have the right to criticize their decision.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be amended, just like the EU version of it was. Consider this precedent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
This case is completely different and not relevant. Twitter has terms of service - that in and of itself is not equivalent to a sidewalk opened for all to use.
- stale2002 6y ago
  You can look at phone companies then, for a similar example. It is illegal, due to common carrier laws, for a phone companies to engage in certain actions. They are actually forced to accept certain customers. These existing laws that apply to phone companies could be expanded to apply to other forms of communication networks.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    It's a bad example - phone conversations are relatively private and not meant for public consumption. If this was P2P messaging I'd agree. But that's not the case here.
Negitivefrags 6y ago