3 ms·

Let’s be honest here, the two aren’t complaining about the same thing. One side is complaining about lax enforcement of TOS violations, while the other is tryin

Let’s be honest here, the two aren’t complaining about the same thing. One side is complaining about lax enforcement of TOS violations, while the other is trying to claim that a private actor enforcing rules on their private property is violating their rights. One is pointing out preferential treatment, and the other is complaining that they aren’t getting enough preferential treatment.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I think both sides want more aggressive enforcement of TOS violations, or at least I see a lot of lefties advocating for more aggressive enforcement while righties are advocating for consistent enforcement. In whatever case, I'm not really interested in ToS concerns for the purposes of this thread. > the other is trying to claim that a private actor enforcing rules on their private property is violating their rights I sympathize with this argument insofar as "their private property" has become the de facto public square, and it's absurd that one company should have the ability to evict someone from the public square. But I'm not actually that interested in the power dynamics between the company and any given individual, but rather about the implications associated with one or several companies having such control over the public square--they can unilaterally influence public opinion and steer democracy. Too much concentrated influence. And if you're one of the folks who were complaining that Russia was able to manipulate Twitter's algorithms to decide the 2016 POTUS election, you necessarily agree that Twitter's algorithms have the potential to decide elections and Twitter pretty clearly has direct control over its algorithms, thus you necessarily believe that Twitter has the potential to unilaterally decide POTUS elections.

3 ms·

Let’s be honest here, the two aren’t complaining about the same thing. One side is complaining about lax enforcement of TOS violations, while the other is tryin

by jonathankoren 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago
I think both sides want more aggressive enforcement of TOS violations, or at least I see a lot of lefties advocating for more aggressive enforcement while righties are advocating for consistent enforcement. In whatever case, I'm not really interested in ToS concerns for the purposes of this thread. > the other is trying to claim that a private actor enforcing rules on their private property is violating their rights I sympathize with this argument insofar as "their private property" has become the de facto public square, and it's absurd that one company should have the ability to evict someone from the public square. But I'm not actually that interested in the power dynamics between the company and any given individual, but rather about the implications associated with one or several companies having such control over the public square--they can unilaterally influence public opinion and steer democracy. Too much concentrated influence. And if you're one of the folks who were complaining that Russia was able to manipulate Twitter's algorithms to decide the 2016 POTUS election, you necessarily agree that Twitter's algorithms have the potential to decide elections and Twitter pretty clearly has direct control over its algorithms, thus you necessarily believe that Twitter has the potential to unilaterally decide POTUS elections.