8 ms·

Issues with Trump aside, this lawsuit can be a great thing. Having a judge declare that Twitter, and other social media are public space and have to follow US f

by 988747 5y ago

Issues with Trump aside, this lawsuit can be a great thing. Having a judge declare that Twitter, and other social media are public space and have to follow US free speech laws instead of their own vague "Terms and Conditions" would be a huge improvement.

_moof 5y ago
"Social media are public space and have to follow US free speech laws" is legal nonsense and there is a 0% chance that this lawsuit will succeed.
- MBCook 5y ago
  Which, on the other hand, would be a great thing because maybe it would finally put that stupid idea to rest.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    I just got down on my knees and prayed that Trump having this lawsuit fail would finally put that stupid idea to rest.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    To rest? Look at the thread. This publicity stunt is working well already.
- tomohawk 5y ago
  People used to say the same thing, prohibiting people of various races from entering their private establishments. These establishments, such as restaurants, provided public services.
  - _moof 5y ago
    You're referring to the Civil Rights Act, and as soon as Trump is denied access to a public accommodation because of his race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity, that analogy might start to make sense. In the meantime he can still get kicked out of a restaurant for any other reason.
cirrus3 5y ago
Inciting violence in a public space isn't tolerated either. There was no "vague" TOS here, the reason was pretty clear.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bastardoperator 5y ago
Disneyland should be deemed a public space so I don't have pay high prices to enter. LOL, keep dreaming...
threatofrain 5y ago
If we really want a digital public square for citizens, maybe people should just support the creation of tax-funded social media? It would be kind of odd if Oracle owned your public library, right? A tax-funded public square would be one where citizens and their elected officials are responsible for its upkeep and proper conduct, and where citizens have official recourse for addressing how things are run. This would also pave the way to discussing internet access as as a public utility which ought be publicly funded.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Issues with Trump aside, this lawsuit can be a great thing. Having a judge declare that Twitter, and other social media are public space and have to follow US free speech laws instead of their own vague "Terms and Conditions" would be a huge improvement. No, that would be hell. Literal spam is speech, too. Do you really want anti-spam technologies to be illegal?
- 988747 5y ago
  If by "Literal spam" you mean something machine-generated and sent in millions of copies then it is pretty clear that can be differentiated from posts that are actually made by humans.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > If by "Literal spam" you mean something machine-generated and sent in millions of copies then it is pretty clear that can be differentiated from posts that are actually made by humans. What are you talking about? Spam isn't machine-generated (not that it matters) and why would something sent in "millions of copies" get less protection from "US free speech laws"?

by 988747 5y ago

_moof 5y ago

"Social media are public space and have to follow US free speech laws" is legal nonsense and there is a 0% chance that this lawsuit will succeed.

MBCook 5y ago
Which, on the other hand, would be a great thing because maybe it would finally put that stupid idea to rest.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  I just got down on my knees and prayed that Trump having this lawsuit fail would finally put that stupid idea to rest.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  To rest? Look at the thread. This publicity stunt is working well already.
tomohawk 5y ago
People used to say the same thing, prohibiting people of various races from entering their private establishments. These establishments, such as restaurants, provided public services.
- _moof 5y ago
  You're referring to the Civil Rights Act, and as soon as Trump is denied access to a public accommodation because of his race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity, that analogy might start to make sense. In the meantime he can still get kicked out of a restaurant for any other reason.

cirrus3 5y ago

Inciting violence in a public space isn't tolerated either. There was no "vague" TOS here, the reason was pretty clear.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bastardoperator 5y ago

Disneyland should be deemed a public space so I don't have pay high prices to enter. LOL, keep dreaming...

threatofrain 5y ago

If we really want a digital public square for citizens, maybe people should just support the creation of tax-funded social media? It would be kind of odd if Oracle owned your public library, right? A tax-funded public square would be one where citizens and their elected officials are responsible for its upkeep and proper conduct, and where citizens have official recourse for addressing how things are run. This would also pave the way to discussing internet access as as a public utility which ought be publicly funded.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Issues with Trump aside, this lawsuit can be a great thing. Having a judge declare that Twitter, and other social media are public space and have to follow US free speech laws instead of their own vague "Terms and Conditions" would be a huge improvement. No, that would be hell. Literal spam is speech, too. Do you really want anti-spam technologies to be illegal?

988747 5y ago
If by "Literal spam" you mean something machine-generated and sent in millions of copies then it is pretty clear that can be differentiated from posts that are actually made by humans.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > If by "Literal spam" you mean something machine-generated and sent in millions of copies then it is pretty clear that can be differentiated from posts that are actually made by humans. What are you talking about? Spam isn't machine-generated (not that it matters) and why would something sent in "millions of copies" get less protection from "US free speech laws"?