3 ms·

> Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech. It absolutely is. You are still free to p

by Nursie 6y ago

> Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech. It absolutely is. You are still free to propagate your ideas. You have no claim to use other people's tools or access other people's property to do so. You are not entitled to an audience. If that means you're literally screaming into the void because nobody else wants anything to do with you, then that's still free speech.

cblconfederate 6y ago
> You are still free to propagate your ideas. I m actually talking about the case where you are not. Private actors cancelling people is exactly that, taking away their freedom to propagate them. They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs like, nobody says "build your own electric grid". We live in era of digital communication, and just like in the past the state built roads to connnect people, it needs to build basic infrastructure for communication and social networking. Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association (esp. in a time of pandemic and lockdowns)
- Nursie 6y ago
  > I m actually talking about the case where you are not. No, you aren't. You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. Twitter is not the world. It's a small subset of the world shouting at each other. It's not the way to reach everyone, nor is it the only way to reach people. And it's certainly not the commons or public property. > They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs But you can build your own twitter-alike, and people have done, rendering this entire point moot. Further "fundamental need"? Maybe take a step back and look at your life if you don't think you could get by without twitter. I've never joined, I know very few people that bother with it. > Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association Clearly it's not a right, as people can be and are frequently denied access to the internet entirely by judges in many countries including the US. And even if it were, using a particular platform is not. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to other people's property, and you do not have a right to access any audience. And you never have had.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    > You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. We can't go back to primitivism > Twitter is not the world. Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. It is a lot more than "one private company" > Further "fundamental need"? Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need for a modern civilized society, i think it should be obvious in this pandemic > Clearly it's not a right, Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The fact that it being taken as punishment is just an admission of it
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. You can easily make your own printing press or telegraph system, though the work is in laying lines. Further, you never had the right to compel someone to print your book, nor send your telegrams. You are inventing these rights. > Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. Are there really governments who put information on twitter that is not published by other means? That's a massive dereliction of duty if so, given twitter serves a small subset of any given population. > Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need Twitter kicking you off is not denying you the ability to communicate. Social networking is not a fundamental need, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone uses it, in fact the majority do not. The vast, vast majority if we're talking about twitter, which has an audience of around 100-150 million worldwide. You are exaggerating this massively. > Freedom of association is a fundamental human right Your idea of digital freedom to associate is clearly not something that exists at present, nor ever has.
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        > had the right to compel someone to print your book You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press. There's a reason why those freedoms were enshrined to constitution and not just left undefined. And i m not sure why you keep bringing up twitter, i m not claiming that twitter should be forced to accept everyne, but that individuals should be a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative and b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves

by Nursie 6y ago

cblconfederate 6y ago

> You are still free to propagate your ideas. I m actually talking about the case where you are not. Private actors cancelling people is exactly that, taking away their freedom to propagate them. They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs like, nobody says "build your own electric grid". We live in era of digital communication, and just like in the past the state built roads to connnect people, it needs to build basic infrastructure for communication and social networking. Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association (esp. in a time of pandemic and lockdowns)

Nursie 6y ago
> I m actually talking about the case where you are not. No, you aren't. You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. Twitter is not the world. It's a small subset of the world shouting at each other. It's not the way to reach everyone, nor is it the only way to reach people. And it's certainly not the commons or public property. > They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs But you can build your own twitter-alike, and people have done, rendering this entire point moot. Further "fundamental need"? Maybe take a step back and look at your life if you don't think you could get by without twitter. I've never joined, I know very few people that bother with it. > Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association Clearly it's not a right, as people can be and are frequently denied access to the internet entirely by judges in many countries including the US. And even if it were, using a particular platform is not. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to other people's property, and you do not have a right to access any audience. And you never have had.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. We can't go back to primitivism > Twitter is not the world. Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. It is a lot more than "one private company" > Further "fundamental need"? Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need for a modern civilized society, i think it should be obvious in this pandemic > Clearly it's not a right, Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The fact that it being taken as punishment is just an admission of it
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. You can easily make your own printing press or telegraph system, though the work is in laying lines. Further, you never had the right to compel someone to print your book, nor send your telegrams. You are inventing these rights. > Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. Are there really governments who put information on twitter that is not published by other means? That's a massive dereliction of duty if so, given twitter serves a small subset of any given population. > Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need Twitter kicking you off is not denying you the ability to communicate. Social networking is not a fundamental need, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone uses it, in fact the majority do not. The vast, vast majority if we're talking about twitter, which has an audience of around 100-150 million worldwide. You are exaggerating this massively. > Freedom of association is a fundamental human right Your idea of digital freedom to associate is clearly not something that exists at present, nor ever has.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      > had the right to compel someone to print your book You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press. There's a reason why those freedoms were enshrined to constitution and not just left undefined. And i m not sure why you keep bringing up twitter, i m not claiming that twitter should be forced to accept everyne, but that individuals should be a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative and b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves