4 ms·

It seems to me that if you really want to be a despot, you should own the companies that control the flow of information. The beauty of it is that the Bill of R

It seems to me that if you really want to be a despot, you should own the companies that control the flow of information. The beauty of it is that the Bill of Rights don't apply to you and you're not obligated to respect the rights it gives citizens because you aren't the government.

fullstop 5y ago
1. The government demanding that messages of private citizens be removed is a violation of their First Amendment Rights. 2. Twitter deleting content, banning users, etc, is entirely within their rights and is in no way a violation of anyone's First Amendment Rights. Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop. I'm currently sitting on some downvotes, which I find kind of unusual for a topic like this. Here's the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which part, specifically, has Twitter violated?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop." That's exactly my point. You can violate the principles of liberty freely as long as you aren't "the government". And the beauty of it is that people will defend you while you do it.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  OK, but imagine some rich guy becoming president. Imagine that he owns some companies. Imagine that one of those is a media company. Imagine, for instance, Zuckerberg as president. He ran as part of party X. Now imagine that Facebook (not government, but a private company) suddenly starts deleting content that supports party Y. Is that a problem? We just had a president with significant business assets, but he owned hotels. The next one may own media companies.
  - fullstop 5y ago
    There's some misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting that there is no problem. I am saying that it is not violating anyone's first amendment rights and I am absolutely correct on that matter.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I concede that you are correct based on the letter of the law but I think the spirit of the law is being violated in a significant way.
      - fullstop 5y ago
        ... but it's not. The entire purpose of that amendment was to prevent congress from passing laws which infringe on your rights, and Twitter is definitely not the congress or the government. The USA is a capitalist society. If there is a market for an "uncensored" social media platform, the invisible hand of the market will take care of it, right? Even so, you yourself are likely pro-censorship in some way. Surely you are against child porn being on Twitter, likely along with discussion about planning mass shootings, bombings, and things of that nature. We all have a line that is drawn between what is acceptable and what is not.
        BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"the invisible hand of the market will take care of it, right?" I don't see this happening and I think the premise is flawed. In fact it looks like the dominant players in the market ganged up on nascent competitors like Parler and shut them out of the ecosystems they created. In practical terms, when payment processors, server hosting companies, domain registrars, and app stores ban you, how are you even supposed to compete? Sure, you can theoretically bootstrap your own payment processor, cloud service provider, even your own smartphone ecosystem with gobs of cash, but we all know that's not going to happen.
        fullstop 5y ago

fullstop 5y ago

1. The government demanding that messages of private citizens be removed is a violation of their First Amendment Rights. 2. Twitter deleting content, banning users, etc, is entirely within their rights and is in no way a violation of anyone's First Amendment Rights. Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop. I'm currently sitting on some downvotes, which I find kind of unusual for a topic like this. Here's the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which part, specifically, has Twitter violated?

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop." That's exactly my point. You can violate the principles of liberty freely as long as you aren't "the government". And the beauty of it is that people will defend you while you do it.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
OK, but imagine some rich guy becoming president. Imagine that he owns some companies. Imagine that one of those is a media company. Imagine, for instance, Zuckerberg as president. He ran as part of party X. Now imagine that Facebook (not government, but a private company) suddenly starts deleting content that supports party Y. Is that a problem? We just had a president with significant business assets, but he owned hotels. The next one may own media companies.
- fullstop 5y ago
  There's some misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting that there is no problem. I am saying that it is not violating anyone's first amendment rights and I am absolutely correct on that matter.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I concede that you are correct based on the letter of the law but I think the spirit of the law is being violated in a significant way.
    - fullstop 5y ago
      ... but it's not. The entire purpose of that amendment was to prevent congress from passing laws which infringe on your rights, and Twitter is definitely not the congress or the government. The USA is a capitalist society. If there is a market for an "uncensored" social media platform, the invisible hand of the market will take care of it, right? Even so, you yourself are likely pro-censorship in some way. Surely you are against child porn being on Twitter, likely along with discussion about planning mass shootings, bombings, and things of that nature. We all have a line that is drawn between what is acceptable and what is not.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"the invisible hand of the market will take care of it, right?" I don't see this happening and I think the premise is flawed. In fact it looks like the dominant players in the market ganged up on nascent competitors like Parler and shut them out of the ecosystems they created. In practical terms, when payment processors, server hosting companies, domain registrars, and app stores ban you, how are you even supposed to compete? Sure, you can theoretically bootstrap your own payment processor, cloud service provider, even your own smartphone ecosystem with gobs of cash, but we all know that's not going to happen.
        fullstop 5y ago