3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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
      - Loughla 6y ago
        >You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press. That has nothing to do with what the original post was about. Yes, you can print whatever you want. But you cannot compel someone else to do it. You moved the target for some reason. >but that individuals should be a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative So your argument against censorship is to hand the reigns to the actual government? What happens when your free platform for individuals to ensure they cannot be deplatformed becomes a voice of violence and hatred against a minority group? >b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves They didn't acquire the audience themselves. They used a 3rd party platform to do that. I don't understand this statement.
- lordloki 6y ago
  >You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. You sound a lot like someone who is against net neutrality with this statement. Does ATT or Comcast have to allow all content through their network or not? Why can't they regulate what goes through their infrastructure? Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service, similar to ATT or Comcast. What makes it ok for Twitter to regulate but not more root services? What about DNS? Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Why?
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service Twitter has a user base of approximately 1.5% of the world's population. It's not an essential communications tool by any stretch of the imagination. There are multiple other services, most of which gain little to no traction because it appears that to most humans, twitter-style communication is entirely uninteresting. I count myself in that (large) number. > similar to ATT or Comcast Except those companies appear to have literal monopolies on internet access in places in the US, which is not the same situation at all. Not being in the US I find that situation bizarre. > Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Probably. Certainly the various authorities are empowered to do so. > Why? That's a far more interesting question, and certainly up for debate. Should some level of communications access be a right? If it is, who pays for it? Who runs it? Does anyone or any government get to decide what's acceptable behaviour on such a system? Why? But equally, why not? I'm entirely open to that discussion, it's probably a discussion that needs to be publicly had in western societies, at some point. But "It's my right to exercise my speech on twitter!" reeks of entitlement and is not supported by any existing concept of speech rights. It also reeks of conflating twitter, a large but still niche service, with communication in general. Twitter just isn't as important as people like to make out.

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
    - Loughla 6y ago
      >You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press. That has nothing to do with what the original post was about. Yes, you can print whatever you want. But you cannot compel someone else to do it. You moved the target for some reason. >but that individuals should be a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative So your argument against censorship is to hand the reigns to the actual government? What happens when your free platform for individuals to ensure they cannot be deplatformed becomes a voice of violence and hatred against a minority group? >b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves They didn't acquire the audience themselves. They used a 3rd party platform to do that. I don't understand this statement.
lordloki 6y ago
>You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. You sound a lot like someone who is against net neutrality with this statement. Does ATT or Comcast have to allow all content through their network or not? Why can't they regulate what goes through their infrastructure? Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service, similar to ATT or Comcast. What makes it ok for Twitter to regulate but not more root services? What about DNS? Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Why?
- Nursie 6y ago
  > Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service Twitter has a user base of approximately 1.5% of the world's population. It's not an essential communications tool by any stretch of the imagination. There are multiple other services, most of which gain little to no traction because it appears that to most humans, twitter-style communication is entirely uninteresting. I count myself in that (large) number. > similar to ATT or Comcast Except those companies appear to have literal monopolies on internet access in places in the US, which is not the same situation at all. Not being in the US I find that situation bizarre. > Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Probably. Certainly the various authorities are empowered to do so. > Why? That's a far more interesting question, and certainly up for debate. Should some level of communications access be a right? If it is, who pays for it? Who runs it? Does anyone or any government get to decide what's acceptable behaviour on such a system? Why? But equally, why not? I'm entirely open to that discussion, it's probably a discussion that needs to be publicly had in western societies, at some point. But "It's my right to exercise my speech on twitter!" reeks of entitlement and is not supported by any existing concept of speech rights. It also reeks of conflating twitter, a large but still niche service, with communication in general. Twitter just isn't as important as people like to make out.