4 ms·
The difference, as I understand it, is that the government made the choice for people rather than a private organization. Under the US constitution, free speec
by RankingMember 6y ago
The difference, as I understand it, is that the government made the choice for people rather than a private organization. Under the US constitution, free speech means that the government cannot limit your speech except in narrow circumstances. This has no bearing on private organizations, which is why Twitter can ban users.
- whatshisface 6y agoUS constitution? This happened in Uganda.
- RankingMember 6y agoRight. What I'm saying is that people making comments about this being the same thing Twitter did with the @realDonaldTrump account and others are maybe missing the differences between the two situations.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoThis is splitting hairs. Twitter has no problem booting millions of people off their platform for political purposes. Clearly, they also don't mind that a rising competitor (Parler) was put out of business overnight. Yet, they don't like it when a country blocks them. This is hypocrisy, regardless how people might try to distinguish one kind of "blocking" from another. It would be better if Uganda didn't block social media. It would also be better if social media didn't block users here in the U.S.
- beervirus 6y agoIt would be best of all if social media did not exist.
- RankingMember 6y ago> It would also be better if social media didn't block users here in the U.S. Would it, though? Do you think social media should be a completely unbounded venue for discourse? HN has rules; if I violate them by attacking others or otherwise being a jerk and get banned, is that really a bad thing? I don't think so, personally. We've all been places online with lax standards and absent/ignorant mods, and, generally, it's a shitshow race to the bottom of personal attacks and racism.