2 ms·
Is it reasonable for a public company to have terms of service which allow for the abridgement of political speech absent the commission of a crime? Twitter is
by mikece 5y ago
Is it reasonable for a public company to have terms of service which allow for the abridgement of political speech absent the commission of a crime? Twitter is affecting the internal politics of a nation by deciding who can and cannot use their platform for political purposes.
And no: I would *not* defend the use of Twitter by the Nazi party if this were the 1930s. In this scenario I would expect Twitter to make an explanation that goes beyond the "violates our terms of service" or some amorphous "community guidelines" nonsense. Twitter is affecting political activity in a foreign nation; I would support India in either banning Twitter from their country or taking civil or criminal actions for silencing political discourse (whatever the local laws permit).
- anoonmoose 5y agoYes, I think it is reasonable. You do too, it's just that you think it's ok in some circumstances and not others.
- mikece 5y agoIt is unreasonable if Twitter doesn't make a statement as to why. If an intelligence agency of a foreign government had done this it would be an act of war. I don't see why Twitter should be seen as any less nefarious merely because it's a company with a ToS when they don't actually explain WHY certain decisions are made and cowardly point to a ToS as though that is an omnibus explanation for all of their actions.
- anoonmoose 5y agoIf an intelligence agency or foreign government did it...they'd be hacking Twitter to do it, and we'd be having a different conversation. Twitter should be free to operate their business, within the bounds of the law, as they see fit. If you think they are being unreasonable, sell your stock, delete your account, petition your congress critter.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> It is unreasonable if Twitter doesn't make a statement as to why. The article cites such statements.