4 ms·

Instead of arguing who, when and why should Twitter ban someone, we should be trying to find a way to stop depending on Twitter, FB and Google for our voices to

Instead of arguing who, when and why should Twitter ban someone, we should be trying to find a way to stop depending on Twitter, FB and Google for our voices to be heard. Banning Trump may seem like a good idea in vacuum, but it's a slippery slope. And before you say that the cases are different, my point is that it shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide. By supporting Trump's ban, we support Twitter to be the arbitrator of free speech. We either have to treat Twitter as a private company, they can do what even the fuck they want, and hence we shouldn't have any saying, or treat it a public utility in which case only a judge can decided who gets banned and who doesn't We cannot have it both ways, based on what we thing suits better our believes at the time.

splistud 6y ago
They are a public company (private in the sense I know you mean it) and should be treated as such. They are a public company that publishes certain opinions by allowing individuals who are willing to espouse those opinions access, while not allowing others. They are a public company that blocks other opinions from being heard (on other platforms) in association with other technology giants, by removing the ability for other private or public corps any access to meaningful internet services unless they do not stay in the opinion lanes the giants are comfortable with. They are a public company that is using their position and status to shape public discourse in the United States, and they should absolutely be treated as such. Here's hoping.