2 ms·
(Not the OP) I would prefer that Twitter did it in response to a court order. But courts don't seem to be able to act fast enough.
by kwhitefoot 6y ago
(Not the OP) I would prefer that Twitter did it in response to a court order. But courts don't seem to be able to act fast enough.
- cpursley 6y agoWhich is why we should also get rid of the courts in addition to free speech.
- HarryHirsch 6y agoCredit card companies managed to do just that. There is the argument that class actions are preferable to Parliament setting laws because courts are more agile, setting precedent. So Big Money got in front of that through mandatory arbitration. Why that is constitutional I couldn't tell. Perhaps it is because Congress is corrupt.
- secondcoming 6y agoTrial by upvotes on /r/publicopinion!
- oneplane 6y agoI'm not sure why a court would have to 'allow' a company to enforce their own terms of service. The other way around would work: if a court finds that the terms of service are in violation of the law then an action can be reversed and terms can be revised. It seems that courts are now being used as some sort of universal arbiter in every disagreement instead of using them for what they are for: decide on legal disputes. Not ever disagreement is a legal dispute but treating it like that makes society brittle and dystopian.