4 ms·

Above you said that twitter was pretty much as permissive as they could as you can get while operating in the US. Don't you think you're moving the goalpost in

by nullc 5y ago

Above you said that twitter was pretty much as permissive as they could as you can get while operating in the US. Don't you think you're moving the goalpost in your response here? I don't see how anyone could seriously sustain an argument that twitter is as permissive as they could be lawfully. (Nor would I argue that they should be /that/ permissive in any case, the law in the US is a very very low bar, in part because we recognize that there are other ways to deal with bad speech than prohibiting it by law)

TameAntelope 5y ago
I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate. Twitter, as a company, should be allowed to pursue whatever market they believe will best provide value to their shareholders, and if that market includes "Americans with typical sensibilities" then I doubt they'd be able to pursue that market while allowing hate speech and harassment on their platform. I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to freely associate as a form of free speech just as vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to say whatever they like (with some exceptions around protected groups).
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  > I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate. Or maybe you mean people who don’t live in those pesky flyover states?
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    ...I live in a pesky flyover state! There are not many of us here, it wouldn't make sense for some small percentage of the US population to dictate how the entire population is forced to engage with one another on a website run by a private (as in not-government run) organization. Twitter should be able to seek profits, and if maximal profits exist by creating a set of rules that can be violated with non-illegal activity, they should be allowed to chase those dollars.
- nullc 5y ago
  Thanks for correcting my misread. That makes a lot more sense. I don't think I agree there, certainly twitter's policies are more restrictive than say-- google-- which is used by a much larger portion of the country. But you've taken a defensible position, which I wouldn't care to debate.

by nullc 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago

I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate. Twitter, as a company, should be allowed to pursue whatever market they believe will best provide value to their shareholders, and if that market includes "Americans with typical sensibilities" then I doubt they'd be able to pursue that market while allowing hate speech and harassment on their platform. I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to freely associate as a form of free speech just as vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to say whatever they like (with some exceptions around protected groups).

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population (western population generally), as an aggregate market segment, will tolerate. Or maybe you mean people who don’t live in those pesky flyover states?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  ...I live in a pesky flyover state! There are not many of us here, it wouldn't make sense for some small percentage of the US population to dictate how the entire population is forced to engage with one another on a website run by a private (as in not-government run) organization. Twitter should be able to seek profits, and if maximal profits exist by creating a set of rules that can be violated with non-illegal activity, they should be allowed to chase those dollars.
nullc 5y ago
Thanks for correcting my misread. That makes a lot more sense. I don't think I agree there, certainly twitter's policies are more restrictive than say-- google-- which is used by a much larger portion of the country. But you've taken a defensible position, which I wouldn't care to debate.