4 ms·
Whenever twitter bans someone, there's a chorus of comments saying that twitter is just a website, just use some uncensorable p2p protocol, etc.. It seems like
by amadeuspagel 5y ago
Whenever twitter bans someone, there's a chorus of comments saying that twitter is just a website, just use some uncensorable p2p protocol, etc.. It seems like all of this would also apply to twitter itself getting banned, and yet I don't see any such comments here.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoA company deciding not to transact with someone is not analogous to a government preventing its citizens from accessing portions of the web.
- throwaway6250 5y agoThe idea that companies should be able to control governments is a very american idea, and is pretty much not accepted anywhere else. When a website actively supports destabilizing forces against a nation, the least that nation (and it's people) can do is to block said website.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- amadeuspagel 5y agoMy comment states a specific analogy, which is that a lot of the excuses people give for the former also apply to the latter. You can't refute this just by stating that it's "not analogous".
- jakelazaroff 5y agoI suppose they’re speciously similar, but the argument at its core is “people should be able to freely associate” which cuts against this decision by the Nigerian government.
- filleduchaos 5y agoIt seems obvious to me that no matter what you personally think of e.g. a restaurant refusing to serve food to someone or even a group of people, the federal government issuing and implementing a decree (all within a matter of hours!) that bans all citizens/residents of the country from even entering said restaurant is a ridiculous overreaction and a gross abuse of state power.
- graphtrader 5y agoI mean obviously when people say that it is a rhetorical devise to win an argument. I mean the people saying that are saying it exactly because it is bullshit. It is hard to argue against exactly because it is such bullshit.