3 ms·

> The pure libertarian position here What do you mean by "here"? That you are a pure libertarian and have this position? > is "they have a right to do this, b

> The pure libertarian position here What do you mean by "here"? That you are a pure libertarian and have this position? > is "they have a right to do this, but it is a bad idea". What does "it's a bad idea" mean? That it is detrimental to twitter, or that it's detrimental to others? > Twitter is working in one of the purest free-markets imaginable. There is simply no barrier to entry around the market of serving 140 character strings on the internet. If they aren't a good steward of their niche they will be replaced and no government regulation is needed. That's not true at all. User base and network effects give huge advantages to incumbents.

roenxi 5y ago
Here as in "here, in this comment thread". If you want to argue that it is a good idea for Twitter to censor jokes in the public square then go ahead. But that argument just is not sustainable. The future will have jokes in it, no matter how humourless Twitter tries to be.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Okay so if that is the pure libertarian position here, what does "it's a bad idea" mean exactly? The pure libertarian definition of that is that it is detrimental to twitter. I'm wondering how that is.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Who do you think is benefiting from banning this tweet? It is completely mundane, harmless and disinteresting. Threatens nobody. Deleting it just riles people up and upset Mr. Johnson to nobody's gain. Compare it with a good moderation system, like HN, where a comment gets greyed out by mass opinion, then everyone moves on. Twitter already has a great mechanism to achieve that called "ignoring the stupid tweet". Banning it was a bad idea. The moderator wasted their time, Mr. Johnson was upset and nobody has come away better off.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      I don't know who benefits and I don't purport to know. Maybe he said other things they disliked (e.g., was critical of China or Saudi or Nike) and they were looking for an excuse to ban him. Maybe their moderation system is crap. I don't know. You were the one who said it was a bad idea. I actually don't think you actually know enough to make that statement, but if it such bad things continue on there, why haven't they been out-competed?
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Ah, I see. I didn't actually think it was a bad idea, I personally think it is not an important enough tweet to matter. I said the pure libertarian position is that it is a bad idea. Libertarianism prizes freedom of speech and unnecessarily blocking someone from expressing themselves (unless there is a really good reason!) is deviating form the pure position. I've made some arguments but you're right; I can't actually know.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        That's not a pure libertarian view, here or elsewhere. The pure libertarian view is that if it is a net benefit to twitter (including where less expenditure on moderation outweighs the costs of poorer quality of moderation), then it's a good idea. The recent strange new throng of libertarian converts who parrot the "it's a private private company" line must adhere to this because they don't even pretend to entertain the suggestion that censorship, unfairness, or discriminating who may use their service could possibly have any downsides to society.
        roenxi 5y ago
        > The pure libertarian view is that if it is a net benefit to twitter (including where less expenditure on moderation outweighs the costs of poorer quality of moderation), then it's a good idea. That isn't a libertarian view. Libertarianism centres around freedom (ie, liberty). Twitter is going to do the thing that most benefits themselves regardless of what political system is in play; so libertarianism doesn't really have anything to say about it. Libertarianism simply argues that Twitter should have very wide latitude to act - especially with respect to their own property if it is the right wing branch of libertarianism. But the pure position doesn't care at all if Twitter is doing things that do or do not benefit Twitter. And although it is good that Twitter has liberty, whether Twitter's subsequent actions are good or not is up for discussion. In this case, Twitter should be free to operate their service however they want (and that is the most important freedom). But banning people without an excellent reason is still a bad idea, libertarianism has valued the free flow of ideas since its inception and banning people from a platform cannot promote that.

roenxi 5y ago

Here as in "here, in this comment thread". If you want to argue that it is a good idea for Twitter to censor jokes in the public square then go ahead. But that argument just is not sustainable. The future will have jokes in it, no matter how humourless Twitter tries to be.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Okay so if that is the pure libertarian position here, what does "it's a bad idea" mean exactly? The pure libertarian definition of that is that it is detrimental to twitter. I'm wondering how that is.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Who do you think is benefiting from banning this tweet? It is completely mundane, harmless and disinteresting. Threatens nobody. Deleting it just riles people up and upset Mr. Johnson to nobody's gain. Compare it with a good moderation system, like HN, where a comment gets greyed out by mass opinion, then everyone moves on. Twitter already has a great mechanism to achieve that called "ignoring the stupid tweet". Banning it was a bad idea. The moderator wasted their time, Mr. Johnson was upset and nobody has come away better off.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I don't know who benefits and I don't purport to know. Maybe he said other things they disliked (e.g., was critical of China or Saudi or Nike) and they were looking for an excuse to ban him. Maybe their moderation system is crap. I don't know. You were the one who said it was a bad idea. I actually don't think you actually know enough to make that statement, but if it such bad things continue on there, why haven't they been out-competed?
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Ah, I see. I didn't actually think it was a bad idea, I personally think it is not an important enough tweet to matter. I said the pure libertarian position is that it is a bad idea. Libertarianism prizes freedom of speech and unnecessarily blocking someone from expressing themselves (unless there is a really good reason!) is deviating form the pure position. I've made some arguments but you're right; I can't actually know.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        That's not a pure libertarian view, here or elsewhere. The pure libertarian view is that if it is a net benefit to twitter (including where less expenditure on moderation outweighs the costs of poorer quality of moderation), then it's a good idea. The recent strange new throng of libertarian converts who parrot the "it's a private private company" line must adhere to this because they don't even pretend to entertain the suggestion that censorship, unfairness, or discriminating who may use their service could possibly have any downsides to society.
        roenxi 5y ago
        > The pure libertarian view is that if it is a net benefit to twitter (including where less expenditure on moderation outweighs the costs of poorer quality of moderation), then it's a good idea. That isn't a libertarian view. Libertarianism centres around freedom (ie, liberty). Twitter is going to do the thing that most benefits themselves regardless of what political system is in play; so libertarianism doesn't really have anything to say about it. Libertarianism simply argues that Twitter should have very wide latitude to act - especially with respect to their own property if it is the right wing branch of libertarianism. But the pure position doesn't care at all if Twitter is doing things that do or do not benefit Twitter. And although it is good that Twitter has liberty, whether Twitter's subsequent actions are good or not is up for discussion. In this case, Twitter should be free to operate their service however they want (and that is the most important freedom). But banning people without an excellent reason is still a bad idea, libertarianism has valued the free flow of ideas since its inception and banning people from a platform cannot promote that.