6 ms·

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 loo

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.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > That isn't a libertarian view. Yes it is. > Libertarianism centres around freedom (ie, liberty). Libertarianism centers around the individual. Which is why it disagrees with the notion that a private person or group should be regulated even if that might increase net liberty in society as a whole.
      - fstrthnscnd 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. > Libertarianism centers around the individual. Which is why it disagrees with the notion that a private person or group should be regulated even if that might increase net liberty in society as a whole. Please explain how the second proposition makes the first libertarian. How I read it is: Libertarianism limits regulation, and thus doesn't prevent the extreme capitalist view of optimizing cost of operation, but in itself, Libertarianism doesn't say: "seek profit by all means". Or is your definition not precise enough?

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.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > That isn't a libertarian view. Yes it is. > Libertarianism centres around freedom (ie, liberty). Libertarianism centers around the individual. Which is why it disagrees with the notion that a private person or group should be regulated even if that might increase net liberty in society as a whole.
    - fstrthnscnd 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. > Libertarianism centers around the individual. Which is why it disagrees with the notion that a private person or group should be regulated even if that might increase net liberty in society as a whole. Please explain how the second proposition makes the first libertarian. How I read it is: Libertarianism limits regulation, and thus doesn't prevent the extreme capitalist view of optimizing cost of operation, but in itself, Libertarianism doesn't say: "seek profit by all means". Or is your definition not precise enough?