4 ms·
As previously several people commented, big tech shot itself in the foot by banning everyone they don’t agree with and suspiciously acting in the same time (Twi
by newbie578 6y ago
As previously several people commented, big tech shot itself in the foot by banning everyone they don’t agree with and suspiciously acting in the same time (Twitter and Facebook).
I don’t know what they expected, other politicians saw how much power platforms hold and they are not going to sit still and wait for it to happen to them.
Jack Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge and executioner.
I for one welcome this kind of bill, I am sad that this brings the balkanization of the internet, but it is inevitable.
- mnd999 6y agoJack had every right, it’s his website. He pays for it, so he gets to decide what appears on it. The same would apply to anyone else running a website. This is not a new idea.
- jdsully 6y agoJack only owns 2% of twitter, further Twitter is a public company. We subject public companies to higher standards than closely held ones because ownership is broad and diluted.
- dcolkitt 6y agoBut he doesn't own Twitter. He's a representative of the shareholders. And TWTR is down 6.5% today on the news. So clearly this decision wasn't in the interest of Twitter's actual owners.
- ben_w 6y agoWe don’t get to see the world where he didn’t do that. For example, let’s pretend his lawyers warned him that TWTR as a company and himself as an individual could be held liable for any future riot organised on Twitter. That would be worse than 6.5%, surely?
- dcolkitt 6y agoBetween 8 PM Friday and 4 AM Monday morning, nothing about potential legal liability changed. The decline over the weekend TWTR banned Trump was larger than the decline following the riot itself.
- ben_w 6y ago1. We don’t know what advice they were getting and when, and it’s the advice not the liability that matters. 2. This is just an example of things which could be going on, not intended as a factual statement of what did and why Twitter chose to do what it chose to do — if I actually knew something not in the public domain, I’d probably be under NDA to not say.
- dcolkitt 6y agoYou think a $40 billion stock moved 6% in a day based on non-public internal discussions among executives and lawyers? If so, that would constitute one of the most blatant cases of insider trading in modern history.
- ben_w 6y agoThat’s not what I was saying. I’m suggesting the beliefs of the Twitter board of directors may have changed due to non-public discussions, causing them to ban Trump despite the foreseeable negative impact on their bottom line, as that would be a less-bad alternative to the consequences of not doing so. I don’t see why this is a controversial claim for me to make given that (1) they did, in fact, ban Trump’s account, and (2) people have been pointing at Trump’s violations the TOS for years already, so Twitter probably previously had non-public grounds for not banning him, grounds which are no longer sufficient. (Point 2 is weaker than point 1, point 1 is basically incontrovertible).
- mnd999 6y agoTwitter is still up significantly from just one year ago. Investors expect the odd blip, and this isn't the only one in the last 6 months. Long term they've done well, so they're happy. They're not going to start asking questions unless this turns into a long-term downward trend.
- SantalBlush 6y ago>Jack Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge and executioner. This type of rhetoric has gotten absurd. Jack Dorsey is not executing anyone.
- effie 6y agoJack Dorsey doesn't control Twitter now.