4 ms·

>They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. Why? Because you believe corporations are people? >And you think this would be less censored? By law, in t

>They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. Why? Because you believe corporations are people? >And you think this would be less censored? By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. >> in social media individuals earn their own audience >So ... individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? Is this honestly how you interpreted the OP comment? Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. They are nothing without the content creators since they don't create any content.

Nursie 6y ago
> Why? Because you believe corporations are people? No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc. > By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at? > Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.

Nursie 6y ago

> Why? Because you believe corporations are people? No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc. > By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at? > Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.