4 ms·

Maybe it's not the person per se, more like the position/institution.

by gsich 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago
I thing the question is whether they deserve this extra protection. Why not other high profile people? Why not ordinary people?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Yeah. If they're going down this route, why not forbid blocking anyone at all unless a court mandates it?
- wmil 5y ago
  Politicians already have special rights and restrictions. Here's the argument. Democracy requires that politicians have the ability to contact potential voters. There are contribution limits as well as spending limits. In politics most of the money is spent trying to contact voters. So tech companies banning some politicians but not others is a contribution in kind to a campaign. The value of a verified Twitter account is far more than the direct contribution limit. Therefore either all politicians should be allowed, or all must be banned from Twitter. The FEC is unable to do its job because the Senate hasn't been confirming appointments. So now states are trying to pass laws to fill the gap.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Television and radio have the right to decline political ads from non candidates and if they think the content is inappropriate or violates the legal rights of another. Are there protections like that in this bill? Are there protections for other protected groups? It seems like it's just piecemealing special privileges rather than creating a good framework.
twelvechairs 5y ago
Cue people entering the political races with the lowest bars to entry just so they can spew hate speech for a few months
- lancemurdock 5y ago
  "hate speech" has become such an overused, loose term that its losing its original meaning
  - gsich 5y ago
    True. It's mostly a synonym for "stuff I don't want to hear".
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    What's wrong with hating anyway? Hate is a perfectly normal emotion. It's okay to hate. A lot of things are worthy of our hate. I think it's strange how people are expected to not express any negative emotions at all.
    - w0de0 5y ago
      I’ll engage, this is an interesting idea. It’s a Cynical idea, in that it advocates an inherent virtue to human subjective experience, even hate - like Diogenes the Cynic asserting public masturbation was fine. So, my response: our emotions have no inherent ethics. They may have a survival value, because strong emotions can compel us to action we may reject if we were rational. Is that - irrational survivalism - really a state to aspire to? Has it any likelihood to induce ethical behavior or advance civilization or make the world nicer for your family? I agree that negative emotions are rather more taboo in America than is healthy. But reflecting on why they are taboo at all, I would rather err on the side of Spock than Worf.

Maybe it's not the person per se, more like the position/institution.

by gsich 5y ago

Maybe it's not the person per se, more like the position/institution.

I thing the question is whether they deserve this extra protection. Why not other high profile people? Why not ordinary people?

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah. If they're going down this route, why not forbid blocking anyone at all unless a court mandates it?
wmil 5y ago
Politicians already have special rights and restrictions. Here's the argument. Democracy requires that politicians have the ability to contact potential voters. There are contribution limits as well as spending limits. In politics most of the money is spent trying to contact voters. So tech companies banning some politicians but not others is a contribution in kind to a campaign. The value of a verified Twitter account is far more than the direct contribution limit. Therefore either all politicians should be allowed, or all must be banned from Twitter. The FEC is unable to do its job because the Senate hasn't been confirming appointments. So now states are trying to pass laws to fill the gap.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Television and radio have the right to decline political ads from non candidates and if they think the content is inappropriate or violates the legal rights of another. Are there protections like that in this bill? Are there protections for other protected groups? It seems like it's just piecemealing special privileges rather than creating a good framework.

twelvechairs 5y ago

Cue people entering the political races with the lowest bars to entry just so they can spew hate speech for a few months

lancemurdock 5y ago
"hate speech" has become such an overused, loose term that its losing its original meaning
- gsich 5y ago
  True. It's mostly a synonym for "stuff I don't want to hear".
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  What's wrong with hating anyway? Hate is a perfectly normal emotion. It's okay to hate. A lot of things are worthy of our hate. I think it's strange how people are expected to not express any negative emotions at all.
  - w0de0 5y ago
    I’ll engage, this is an interesting idea. It’s a Cynical idea, in that it advocates an inherent virtue to human subjective experience, even hate - like Diogenes the Cynic asserting public masturbation was fine. So, my response: our emotions have no inherent ethics. They may have a survival value, because strong emotions can compel us to action we may reject if we were rational. Is that - irrational survivalism - really a state to aspire to? Has it any likelihood to induce ethical behavior or advance civilization or make the world nicer for your family? I agree that negative emotions are rather more taboo in America than is healthy. But reflecting on why they are taboo at all, I would rather err on the side of Spock than Worf.