2 ms·

The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal

The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew. I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably, > Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private. Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.

emc3 5y ago
> Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!
engineer_22 5y ago
What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.

emc3 5y ago

> Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!

engineer_22 5y ago

What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?

joshuamorton 5y ago
> What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.