6 ms·

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

gjsman-1000 5y ago
In an ideal world, because they are now the public square effectively, they should be held to a different stricter standard. As well as other big tech companies (App Store, etc.)
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies? Marjorie Taylor Greene has VASTLY more ability to get her messages out, and to therefore express herself, than the average American citizen. She can go on Fox News or MSNBC or she can have her office send out press releases. Please stop saying this is censorship. This is NO WAY meets any accepted definition of censorship in the frame you are using.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I’m not talking about just Twitter or just this issue. And I specified “in an ideal world” which we aren’t in. In an ideal world, big tech would have more regulation and would have, due to their size, certain regulations on their behavior and who they choose not to do business with, not just in the political sphere. An example (to draw an extreme example to make my point), Visa and MasterCard (due to their size) couldn’t just say screw OnlyFans. They are too large and influential especially together.
    - rpdillon 5y ago
      I don't understand why regulating big tech is ideal. Isn't it more ideal for the government to run their own social media, or to have Twitter/Facebook deals that provide a white label version of those services exclusively for government use? I feel like either of those approaches would accomplish a similar goal with fewer compromises than regulation would entail.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
saurik 5y ago
> Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? The argument "I know they can but that does not mean they should" doesn't imply that when they don't do something they shouldn't do they lose the ability to do it... I shouldn't be a jerk, but I do believe I have the legal right to be a jerk, so I guess by your argument I need to be a jerk and I guess no one should even call me out for it? That doesn't make any sense: Twitter currently can do this stuff; and yet, despite that, they shouldn't.
psyc 5y ago
Twitter is not a conscious being, and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. I support maximal liberty for humans, and appropriate protection of those humans from corporations as well as the government. Corporations may be collections of people, but they're a lot more than that - which makes them not human - and in any case they are not loci of experience.
- forty 5y ago
  Some users might like a platform where saying obviously false things and potentially dangerous things is not allowed and I don't know why Twitter should not be allowed to provide them with this.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    They have a fair amount of work to do to achieve that goal.
- Jeema101 5y ago
  "The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  By this logic, your family is also not a conscious being and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. Or maybe you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend and a group of friends. Are these groups also unable to experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed?
  - psyc 5y ago
    That's right. But they are able to have what we call a shared experience, which is a little different. However it isn't relevant here, because the shared experience of all the employees of a corporation is not the basis for the legal personhood of corporations. And what is the basis? class Corporation : public Person It's for the same reason mediocre OOP programmers use inheritance to borrow some partial implementation. It gets the job done, even if it doesn't quite fit.
hammock 5y ago
Not sure they have to. Gjsman affirmed their right to freedom (they CAN), but would prefer that they exercised that freedom in a certain way (they SHOULD). Believe it or not, government regulations don't have to be the solution to every little thing. See saurik's comment below for more.
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if Twitter terminated her account because she was a woman or a person of color or a member of a protected class.
  - hammock 5y ago
    >: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor That doesn't apply? The common definition of censor is not exclusive to government.
    - gpu_explorer 5y ago
      Even if we use the definition in sense 2 (and I definitely don't think we should) enforcing a contract is not censorship. As far as I am aware, Marjorie Taylor Green was over the age of majority and of sound mind and body - and therefore fully capable of agreeing to the terms of a written agreement - when she agreed to the Twitter terms of service.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    You are painfully wrong on the definition of censorship. Censorship is the act of a third party intermediary controlling the content of speech, no matter who that third party is. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "censor" as "a person who supervises conduct and morals". They go on to use the word "official, which you might think implies bona fide government. But they define "official" as "one who holds or is invested with an office", which most certainly applies to private corporations. By banning people based on the content of their speech, Twitter is precisely engaging in censorship. Just because they haven't called their department head responsible for handing out bans a "Censor" does not mean their constructive behavior is something new that we don't have a word for! Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion. The US Bill of Rights takes natural rights and narrowly frames them in terms of restrictions on government, because that is likely the best that can be done at its level of abstraction. The scale Twitter operates at is much closer to that of government than that of the People - it is most certainly appropriate to say that Twitter is impinging upon individuals' freedom of speech. If you do not agree that it is a concern, then go ahead and make that argument on its own merits. Narrowly construing definitions so that you can discard concerns does not make for productive understanding. (Having said that my own feeling here is that Ms. Ignorance-as-a-Service has reaped what she has sown, is of a notoriety that is legible to Twitter, and can easily publish on other platforms - compare with all the unnoteworthy individuals who get the automated banhammers with no appeal. And this will ultimately just be a boon to her, just like any other celebrity feud. But let us not twist our own definitions to assuage our cognitive dissonance!)
sebow 5y ago
Simple: Because they're kind of regarded (through the law, by the courts) as a "public space". Twitter should not censor anybody off their platform when the courts consider them a public forum, let alone elected officials.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
When the decentralized web, for all intents and purposes died and was replaced by like 5-6 major platforms who largely collude to silence people or perspectives...all the "mah property" take on how this isn't a free speech case goes out the door. The monopolistic cabal of Twitter, Facebook and Google changes how this should be seen. Imho - you either break them up into a 100 companies, or you legally ban them from censorship.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

In an ideal world, because they are now the public square effectively, they should be held to a different stricter standard. As well as other big tech companies (App Store, etc.)

gpu_explorer 5y ago
Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies? Marjorie Taylor Greene has VASTLY more ability to get her messages out, and to therefore express herself, than the average American citizen. She can go on Fox News or MSNBC or she can have her office send out press releases. Please stop saying this is censorship. This is NO WAY meets any accepted definition of censorship in the frame you are using.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I’m not talking about just Twitter or just this issue. And I specified “in an ideal world” which we aren’t in. In an ideal world, big tech would have more regulation and would have, due to their size, certain regulations on their behavior and who they choose not to do business with, not just in the political sphere. An example (to draw an extreme example to make my point), Visa and MasterCard (due to their size) couldn’t just say screw OnlyFans. They are too large and influential especially together.
  - rpdillon 5y ago
    I don't understand why regulating big tech is ideal. Isn't it more ideal for the government to run their own social media, or to have Twitter/Facebook deals that provide a white label version of those services exclusively for government use? I feel like either of those approaches would accomplish a similar goal with fewer compromises than regulation would entail.
- mistermann 5y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

saurik 5y ago

> Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? The argument "I know they can but that does not mean they should" doesn't imply that when they don't do something they shouldn't do they lose the ability to do it... I shouldn't be a jerk, but I do believe I have the legal right to be a jerk, so I guess by your argument I need to be a jerk and I guess no one should even call me out for it? That doesn't make any sense: Twitter currently can do this stuff; and yet, despite that, they shouldn't.

psyc 5y ago

Twitter is not a conscious being, and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. I support maximal liberty for humans, and appropriate protection of those humans from corporations as well as the government. Corporations may be collections of people, but they're a lot more than that - which makes them not human - and in any case they are not loci of experience.

forty 5y ago
Some users might like a platform where saying obviously false things and potentially dangerous things is not allowed and I don't know why Twitter should not be allowed to provide them with this.
- mistermann 5y ago
  They have a fair amount of work to do to achieve that goal.
Jeema101 5y ago
"The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
gpu_explorer 5y ago
By this logic, your family is also not a conscious being and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. Or maybe you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend and a group of friends. Are these groups also unable to experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed?
- psyc 5y ago
  That's right. But they are able to have what we call a shared experience, which is a little different. However it isn't relevant here, because the shared experience of all the employees of a corporation is not the basis for the legal personhood of corporations. And what is the basis? class Corporation : public Person It's for the same reason mediocre OOP programmers use inheritance to borrow some partial implementation. It gets the job done, even if it doesn't quite fit.

hammock 5y ago

Not sure they have to. Gjsman affirmed their right to freedom (they CAN), but would prefer that they exercised that freedom in a certain way (they SHOULD). Believe it or not, government regulations don't have to be the solution to every little thing. See saurik's comment below for more.

gpu_explorer 5y ago
I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if Twitter terminated her account because she was a woman or a person of color or a member of a protected class.
- hammock 5y ago
  >: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor That doesn't apply? The common definition of censor is not exclusive to government.
  - gpu_explorer 5y ago
    Even if we use the definition in sense 2 (and I definitely don't think we should) enforcing a contract is not censorship. As far as I am aware, Marjorie Taylor Green was over the age of majority and of sound mind and body - and therefore fully capable of agreeing to the terms of a written agreement - when she agreed to the Twitter terms of service.
- mindslight 5y ago
  You are painfully wrong on the definition of censorship. Censorship is the act of a third party intermediary controlling the content of speech, no matter who that third party is. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "censor" as "a person who supervises conduct and morals". They go on to use the word "official, which you might think implies bona fide government. But they define "official" as "one who holds or is invested with an office", which most certainly applies to private corporations. By banning people based on the content of their speech, Twitter is precisely engaging in censorship. Just because they haven't called their department head responsible for handing out bans a "Censor" does not mean their constructive behavior is something new that we don't have a word for! Furthermore, immediately referencing the Bill of Rights to call Twitter's activities "freedom of expression" is wantonly destructive to any sort of discussion. The US Bill of Rights takes natural rights and narrowly frames them in terms of restrictions on government, because that is likely the best that can be done at its level of abstraction. The scale Twitter operates at is much closer to that of government than that of the People - it is most certainly appropriate to say that Twitter is impinging upon individuals' freedom of speech. If you do not agree that it is a concern, then go ahead and make that argument on its own merits. Narrowly construing definitions so that you can discard concerns does not make for productive understanding. (Having said that my own feeling here is that Ms. Ignorance-as-a-Service has reaped what she has sown, is of a notoriety that is legible to Twitter, and can easily publish on other platforms - compare with all the unnoteworthy individuals who get the automated banhammers with no appeal. And this will ultimately just be a boon to her, just like any other celebrity feud. But let us not twist our own definitions to assuage our cognitive dissonance!)

sebow 5y ago

Simple: Because they're kind of regarded (through the law, by the courts) as a "public space". Twitter should not censor anybody off their platform when the courts consider them a public forum, let alone elected officials.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

When the decentralized web, for all intents and purposes died and was replaced by like 5-6 major platforms who largely collude to silence people or perspectives...all the "mah property" take on how this isn't a free speech case goes out the door. The monopolistic cabal of Twitter, Facebook and Google changes how this should be seen. Imho - you either break them up into a 100 companies, or you legally ban them from censorship.