3 ms·

It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and les

It's one of those things where in theory and in the rule of law the CEO can do so. It does make me feel uncomfortable, though. As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. I don't know what 'the solution' is, but I do sense a precedent being established that I am weary of. Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users, but also a private platform where they can be ejected at-will.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either. The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself. I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter account. She'd be the same as the other 435 Representatives who release statements on their house.gov website that no one realizes exists. Edit: >"I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts." This was actually a court ruling. I have no clue if Twitter actually coded this requirement on @realDonaldTrump after the fact. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his-twitter-feed-federal-judge-n876831 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his...
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    That is a court order due to the President’s status as a particular type of government employee, not a Twitter policy.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      Okay. The whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly think that being a "private company" on the size and scale of Twitter justifies their ability to censor the president.
carapace 5y ago
I think the root problem is that a single private platform has become a de facto public sphere, like, at all. Is there any precedent for this? I also don't know what a solution might look like, I mean, what are you going to do? Nationalize Twitter? It's a general problem too (IMO): Microsoft/Github mediates FOSS development, Facebook (I'm never going to call them "Meta", I think the rename was a huge dick move by Zuckerberg that pollutes our language and culture. Nyah.) Facebook is Easy-Bake oven Internet for normies and they love it. Smart phones are malls.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Twitter is [...] a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users No, it's not. When a public official uses their Twitter account as an official channel, that account becomes a limited public forum from which users cannot be blocked for reasons that they could not be excluded from official government fora more generally (e.g., viewpoint discrimination is not permitted.) This is not a restriction on Twitter, but on the conduct of government business by public officials that applies wherever and whenever they conduct such business.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one. “a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users” is a de jure not de facto distinction, unless you are using hyperbolic language for a practical difficulty rather than an actual prohibition.
krapp 5y ago
>As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else. Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years. The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances. I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus. It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians" Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property? The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances. The Net Neutrality folks are fighting so that Comcast cannot determine which parts of the internet I am allowed to visit using their service. What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure." The government controls what citizens can do with their private property all the time, and in just about every facet of our lives. I see no harm in making laws depending on the scale of the company.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either. The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself. I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter account. She'd be the same as the other 435 Representatives who release statements on their house.gov website that no one realizes exists. Edit: >"I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts." This was actually a court ruling. I have no clue if Twitter actually coded this requirement on @realDonaldTrump after the fact. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his-twitter-feed-federal-judge-n876831 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-can-t-block-users-his...
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  That is a court order due to the President’s status as a particular type of government employee, not a Twitter policy.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    Okay. The whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly think that being a "private company" on the size and scale of Twitter justifies their ability to censor the president.

carapace 5y ago

I think the root problem is that a single private platform has become a de facto public sphere, like, at all. Is there any precedent for this? I also don't know what a solution might look like, I mean, what are you going to do? Nationalize Twitter? It's a general problem too (IMO): Microsoft/Github mediates FOSS development, Facebook (I'm never going to call them "Meta", I think the rename was a huge dick move by Zuckerberg that pollutes our language and culture. Nyah.) Facebook is Easy-Bake oven Internet for normies and they love it. Smart phones are malls.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Twitter is [...] a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users No, it's not. When a public official uses their Twitter account as an official channel, that account becomes a limited public forum from which users cannot be blocked for reasons that they could not be excluded from official government fora more generally (e.g., viewpoint discrimination is not permitted.) This is not a restriction on Twitter, but on the conduct of government business by public officials that applies wherever and whenever they conduct such business.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I'm saying it's a de-facto public sphere rather than de-jure one. “a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users” is a de jure not de facto distinction, unless you are using hyperbolic language for a practical difficulty rather than an actual prohibition.

krapp 5y ago

>As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies. There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else. Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years. The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances. I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus. It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians" Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property? The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances. The Net Neutrality folks are fighting so that Comcast cannot determine which parts of the internet I am allowed to visit using their service. What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure." The government controls what citizens can do with their private property all the time, and in just about every facet of our lives. I see no harm in making laws depending on the scale of the company.