3 ms·

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm a democrat who voted for Biden and doesn't question the outcome of the election. That said, our society does not ne

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm a democrat who voted for Biden and doesn't question the outcome of the election. That said, our society does not need this kind of gerrymandering in our online discourse. People need to forget politics for a second and realize the true harm companies like this are inflicting by effectively playing god.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I think the message of holding social media accountable for the harm it causes everybody is being drowned out by the hyperbolic statements like "effectively playing god". They are not playing god. They own a platform, they are determining who can and cannot speak on that platform. That's the same thing every news paper, internet forum, email server, BBS, public bulletin board, or really any publishing of any kind has done since the invention of publishing. Twitter is not part of the government, and it does not have a monopoly on internet communication. Hell, it doesn't even charge for its services. You are not entitled to use their platform. If you are disgusted and disappointed in social media for their behavior, that's perfectly reasonable! There are things you can do about it! you can refuse to use their service, refuse to recommend it to friends, promote competitors, etc. What you cannot do is pretend that just because they are a large wealthy organization you have some kind of right to use their platform to say whatever you want.
- lliamander 6y ago
  You are not entitled to use a platform, but there are plenty of reasons why a platform may be liable for kicking you off. There's the obvious case if they should discriminate against users based on a protected class. Platforms have also been sued for things like tortuous interference and deceptive practices as a consequence of deplatforming users. If a user engages in activity that is either clearly illegal or contrary to clear and sensible Terms of Service, removing them is obviously a fine and good thing. Outside of those circumstances though, I would not take it as a given that there is no recourse if a user is deplatformed.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

I think the message of holding social media accountable for the harm it causes everybody is being drowned out by the hyperbolic statements like "effectively playing god". They are not playing god. They own a platform, they are determining who can and cannot speak on that platform. That's the same thing every news paper, internet forum, email server, BBS, public bulletin board, or really any publishing of any kind has done since the invention of publishing. Twitter is not part of the government, and it does not have a monopoly on internet communication. Hell, it doesn't even charge for its services. You are not entitled to use their platform. If you are disgusted and disappointed in social media for their behavior, that's perfectly reasonable! There are things you can do about it! you can refuse to use their service, refuse to recommend it to friends, promote competitors, etc. What you cannot do is pretend that just because they are a large wealthy organization you have some kind of right to use their platform to say whatever you want.

lliamander 6y ago
You are not entitled to use a platform, but there are plenty of reasons why a platform may be liable for kicking you off. There's the obvious case if they should discriminate against users based on a protected class. Platforms have also been sued for things like tortuous interference and deceptive practices as a consequence of deplatforming users. If a user engages in activity that is either clearly illegal or contrary to clear and sensible Terms of Service, removing them is obviously a fine and good thing. Outside of those circumstances though, I would not take it as a given that there is no recourse if a user is deplatformed.