4 ms·
Hard to imagine a legal approach that does not impermissibly infringe on the free association rights of all the various participants. The question is whether an
by asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Hard to imagine a legal approach that does not impermissibly infringe on the free association rights of all the various participants. The question is whether any other mechanism would be sufficient. If Twitter were interested, they could do something to inhibit the flow of the outrage mechanism, but there are strong free speech arguments against doing this. Also it is of course not in Twitter's own best interest.
If we rule out government and Twitter's action, the next idea is to convince enough mob participants themselves that it's not a good idea. This actually does seem feasible. I mean cancel culture itself is only five or six years old, at least as we think if it today. Another broad shift in perspective seems possible.
- nradov 5y agoTwitter management stopped caring about free speech years ago. They are no longer the "free speech wing of the free speech party". Instead they actively promote a particular brand of US progressive politics, and ban anyone who steps out of line. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/twitter-steps-down-free-speech-party https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/twitter-steps-down-fre...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoI'm not saying Twitter cares about free speech. I'm saying that if we do, there's probably not much we can do legally to address this situation.
- zapita 5y agoThis article is about Twitter complying with Russian and Pakistani court orders. What’s the connection to “US progressive politics”?
- rootusrootus 5y agoGiven the amount of right-wing tripe I find in my twitter feed, I'm going to say that Twitter doesn't ban people who don't agree with progressive politics. I think the only ideology they really have is money.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoIt's Twitter. Free speech does not apply. Get this out of your heads. If you're in Twitters house you play by their rules.
- angelzen 5y agoDorian Abbot's crime was writing an op-ed in Newsweek. He did not enter Twitter's house, Twitter went after him. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-and-me https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-an... https://www.newsweek.com/diversity-problem-campus-opinion-1618419 https://www.newsweek.com/diversity-problem-campus-opinion-16...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoYes . . . that was my point. There is not a legislatable way to compel Twitter to stop this behavior without violating Twitter's and protestors' free speech rights.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoNo. I'm saying nothing that twitter can do would infringe on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prevent people from saying something.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago> No. I'm saying nothing that twitter can do would infringe on freedom of speech. I understand that that's what you're saying. But you're responding to my comment implying that I'm disagreeing with that point of view, which I did not.