4 ms·

How is this different from any other moderation? Nobody would bat an eye if you were banned from HN or reddit for hate speech. Why should a platform be any dif

How is this different from any other moderation? Nobody would bat an eye if you were banned from HN or reddit for hate speech. Why should a platform be any different? If my customer started using my services to spread Nazism, I'd ban them too. Let's say I was a baker - would it be reasonable that I be compelled to draw swastikas on cakes? Obviously, that's absurd! It is equally absurd to demand that other businesses provide platforms for behavior they don't condone. Freedom of speech is freedom from oppression by government. Parler isn't being oppressed, they just aren't being given a platform to oppress others by private citizens and corporations. Well, not anymore, although lots of corps made some money from them while they could.

tannedNerd 6y ago
I think the issue is that the town square that the first is supposed to protect doesn’t exist anymore. The town square is now Twitter, and valid or not, the de-platforming of a lot of conservatives is going to have a lasting backlash against tech companies. I wouldn’t be surprised to see GOP resurgence in 2022, along with another very real attack on section 230.
- dleslie 6y ago
  With the town square metaphor: while you cannot be prosecuted for what you say in the square, you can be persecuted by your civilian peers; folks may stop speaking to you, or begin informing others of your nature. Twitter et al booting persons from their services is the neighbour slamming their door in your face, or the baker refusing to do business with you. The town square is tcp/ip, not the services on top of it.
- mullen 6y ago
  Twitter is not the town square since real town squares are owned by the State. They are public spaces for all and, let me point out, that you usually need a permit to speak or have a rally. So they are not that free as everyone thinks. Twitter is more like a mall owned by a large corporation and while there is some trouble there, they will kick people off the property that are too offensive. If you try to start an insurrection at a mall, you will be kicked out and banned. It is in Twitters and mall owners best interest to start insurrections on their properties because there will be ramifications for allowing that to happen, that is not good for business.
nullc 6y ago
Because part of the justification for sloppy and capricious banning without anything resembling due process is that you're free to go elsewhere. This justification doesn't work if elsewhere is shut down too.

tannedNerd 6y ago

I think the issue is that the town square that the first is supposed to protect doesn’t exist anymore. The town square is now Twitter, and valid or not, the de-platforming of a lot of conservatives is going to have a lasting backlash against tech companies. I wouldn’t be surprised to see GOP resurgence in 2022, along with another very real attack on section 230.

dleslie 6y ago
With the town square metaphor: while you cannot be prosecuted for what you say in the square, you can be persecuted by your civilian peers; folks may stop speaking to you, or begin informing others of your nature. Twitter et al booting persons from their services is the neighbour slamming their door in your face, or the baker refusing to do business with you. The town square is tcp/ip, not the services on top of it.
mullen 6y ago
Twitter is not the town square since real town squares are owned by the State. They are public spaces for all and, let me point out, that you usually need a permit to speak or have a rally. So they are not that free as everyone thinks. Twitter is more like a mall owned by a large corporation and while there is some trouble there, they will kick people off the property that are too offensive. If you try to start an insurrection at a mall, you will be kicked out and banned. It is in Twitters and mall owners best interest to start insurrections on their properties because there will be ramifications for allowing that to happen, that is not good for business.

nullc 6y ago

Because part of the justification for sloppy and capricious banning without anything resembling due process is that you're free to go elsewhere. This justification doesn't work if elsewhere is shut down too.