4 ms·

It's not censoring for a private company to refuse service to someone. I don't agree with government compelling speech for a private company either.

psyc 5y ago
Why is Twitter the speaker when MTG tweets, but Verizon is not the speaker when I call my mom?
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  Good question. I'd say it has to do with how public the communication in question is, but I'd be interested in other opinions.
- darkstar999 5y ago
  Because Verizon isn't broadcasting your conversation to the world.
- hairofadog 5y ago
  Your conversation with your mom is private communication, while your tweets are broadcast communications.
  - psyc 5y ago
    You've stated a fact. Why does this fact make Twitter the speaker whose free speech rights take precedence?
    - short12 5y ago
      It's apples and oranges and therefore are not and should not be regulated in the same way
    - hairofadog 5y ago
      I think that fact is pertinent, but it may also be helpful to think of the distinction between a publisher and a technology. If I write a book called “Vaccines Kill and Trump is Still President”, it feels fair and correct to me that Random House has the right to pass on publishing it but that nobody could stop me from reading it to someone over the phone or mailing it to someone.
- clowd 5y ago
  The pragmatic answer is: because the law says so. The technical answer is: Verizon can't hear what you're saying to your mom, so they don't know/care the content. The social answer is: ultimately there's no real difference between the two. If you use your Verizon phone to make harassing calls to your mom and she reports those calls to Verizon, or if you do something else that violates your agreement with Verizon, they too have the right to terminate your service: "We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement or violate our prohibited usage policies..." Now, because you pay Verizon, and Verizon likes money, they may be more inclined to tolerate certain behavior as long as you pay your bill on time. That's their choice, though.
tag2103 5y ago
But when is a private company's refusal of service break the line of editorializing their product?
rosmax_1337 5y ago
Would you hold that opinion if someone was declined access to a platform because of their skin color?
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  No. I do agree that discrimination based on protected characteristics should not be allowed. There's obviously a conversation to be had on what should be protected.
bko 5y ago
But if the government is in talks w/ the social media about setting their policy, and they use that policy to ban other politicians, is that not censorship?
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  If the government leans on Twitter to silence a user, then yes, that would be censorship. There is no evidence this has happened, however; the substack post you referenced is drivel.
  - bko 5y ago
    The White House admits that they're in regular communication with social media platforms and are flagging problematic posts on facebook. What about that is drivel? > Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms. > MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic. > In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
xdennis 5y ago
Just because Twitter has the right to remove content doesn't mean that removing it isn't censorship.

psyc 5y ago

Why is Twitter the speaker when MTG tweets, but Verizon is not the speaker when I call my mom?

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
Good question. I'd say it has to do with how public the communication in question is, but I'd be interested in other opinions.
darkstar999 5y ago
Because Verizon isn't broadcasting your conversation to the world.
hairofadog 5y ago
Your conversation with your mom is private communication, while your tweets are broadcast communications.
- psyc 5y ago
  You've stated a fact. Why does this fact make Twitter the speaker whose free speech rights take precedence?
  - short12 5y ago
    It's apples and oranges and therefore are not and should not be regulated in the same way
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    I think that fact is pertinent, but it may also be helpful to think of the distinction between a publisher and a technology. If I write a book called “Vaccines Kill and Trump is Still President”, it feels fair and correct to me that Random House has the right to pass on publishing it but that nobody could stop me from reading it to someone over the phone or mailing it to someone.
clowd 5y ago
The pragmatic answer is: because the law says so. The technical answer is: Verizon can't hear what you're saying to your mom, so they don't know/care the content. The social answer is: ultimately there's no real difference between the two. If you use your Verizon phone to make harassing calls to your mom and she reports those calls to Verizon, or if you do something else that violates your agreement with Verizon, they too have the right to terminate your service: "We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement or violate our prohibited usage policies..." Now, because you pay Verizon, and Verizon likes money, they may be more inclined to tolerate certain behavior as long as you pay your bill on time. That's their choice, though.

tag2103 5y ago

But when is a private company's refusal of service break the line of editorializing their product?

rosmax_1337 5y ago

Would you hold that opinion if someone was declined access to a platform because of their skin color?

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
No. I do agree that discrimination based on protected characteristics should not be allowed. There's obviously a conversation to be had on what should be protected.

bko 5y ago

But if the government is in talks w/ the social media about setting their policy, and they use that policy to ban other politicians, is that not censorship?

alamortsubite 5y ago
If the government leans on Twitter to silence a user, then yes, that would be censorship. There is no evidence this has happened, however; the substack post you referenced is drivel.
- bko 5y ago
  The White House admits that they're in regular communication with social media platforms and are flagging problematic posts on facebook. What about that is drivel? > Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms. > MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic. > In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

xdennis 5y ago

Just because Twitter has the right to remove content doesn't mean that removing it isn't censorship.