7 ms·

If a twitter user blocks another user, is the blocked user being censored because they can't speak to the user that blocked them? Is this infringing on their f

If a twitter user blocks another user, is the blocked user being censored because they can't speak to the user that blocked them? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone spams twitter with billions of messages, to the point where just about the only thing anyone sees are this one person's messages, would it be censorship to ban that person from making posts? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person? Is this infringing on their free speech? If someone posts information that misleads people about when and where to vote in an election, is it censorship to ban that person from posting? Is this infringing on their free speech?

nullc 4y ago
> they can't speak to the user that blocked them To be fair, the primary effect of twitter blocking isn't to prevent the user performing the block from seeing the person tweeting, the primary effect is preventing the blocked user from commenting on particular parts of the site-- and preventing third parties from seeing their messages. Reddit recently switched to this model too: if you block someone they can't comment in threads where you've participated unless they're a moderator. I understand why-- just blinding yourself to someone harassing you just lets them defame you unchallenged. But a block function that mutes people is vulnerable to abuse. > If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person god forbid anyone get access to information available for free in every public library in the US, or with 30 seconds searching online.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  As far as I’m aware this is incorrect. A user who is blocked by another user is not prevented from commenting in a thread that the blocker participates it. It’s just shown a hidden message thing and they can’t reply to that specific message. If another user comes in and comments , they can reply to that comment. On Reddit , a blocker can make it so that a user cannot participate at all.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Thanks for the correction, -- I've never been a twitter user so I only know second hand and was probably letting my understanding of how reddit works color my understanding.
LegitShady 4y ago
If twitter bans any mentioned of a laptop full of any incriminating evidence right before the election...
- themitigating 4y ago
  You don't know what's on that laptop and you don't know if it's incriminating
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    well yes that was the whole point of censoring discussion of it and the media lying about its providence. "you can't prove" because everyone who should have been interested in the truth was interested in protecting their team.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      The point of censoring the laptop was to help Biden and Twitter was wrong to do it. However the information on the laptop hasn't been released and yet you stated it was incriminating. This is probably why Twitter tried to block the story, because voters will be swayed without evidence but since there are a large number of media outlets the story got out anyway and the attempted censoring amplified the mistrust. Why do you think there is evidence of wrong doing when all the information you have is that he has a laptop?
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        information from the laptop was released...you just didn't see it because it was censored.
        themitigating 4y ago
        Can you provide a link to it?
kleton 4y ago
>If a twitter user blocks another user, is the blocked user being censored because they can't speak to the user that blocked them? Is this infringing on their free speech? Case law in the USA says yes https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter...
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  That outcome is solely because Trump was president and in that case is the government. Blocking someone else from speaking is also a form of speech, there is no right to be heard outside of the government silencing you. If not then I have a right to use your property to tell you what I think and you're unable to do anything about it.
bern4444 4y ago
A parallel situation appears to me as, someone on the street is talking to people walking by, to avoid hearing them I put on noise canceling headphones and walk away so I don't see them. Am I censoring them, no. I am not interrupting their ability to speak freely. I'm simply exercising my right not to listen.
- flyingcircus3 4y ago
  Banned twitter users are all free to type out what they would have tweeted, while twitter exercises its right not to listen to, and subsequently distribute it. A more apt analogy is that the person is using someone else's public address system to speak to a lot of people efficiently. Third parties may just keep their head down and ignore it, but the owner of the public address system can and should have standards of what their willing to amplify. The owner is also not restricting the speech of a person he refuses to amplify.
  - andresp 4y ago
    Sure. As long as they become legally co-responsible for the speech they are choosing to amplify, i.e. as long as they accept they are no longer just a platform.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      This would be a violation of freedom of association, which is why it's not a thing.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > This would be a violation of freedom of association No, actually. We force public businesses to not discriminate based on race, and we have laws that for the telephone company to send almost all calls on its network. Nobody would say that those laws break our rights to freedom of association. Similar laws could be place on social media companies that we already put on telephone companies, even if they wouldn't be exactly the same.

nullc 4y ago

> they can't speak to the user that blocked them To be fair, the primary effect of twitter blocking isn't to prevent the user performing the block from seeing the person tweeting, the primary effect is preventing the blocked user from commenting on particular parts of the site-- and preventing third parties from seeing their messages. Reddit recently switched to this model too: if you block someone they can't comment in threads where you've participated unless they're a moderator. I understand why-- just blinding yourself to someone harassing you just lets them defame you unchallenged. But a block function that mutes people is vulnerable to abuse. > If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person god forbid anyone get access to information available for free in every public library in the US, or with 30 seconds searching online.

Jcowell 4y ago
As far as I’m aware this is incorrect. A user who is blocked by another user is not prevented from commenting in a thread that the blocker participates it. It’s just shown a hidden message thing and they can’t reply to that specific message. If another user comes in and comments , they can reply to that comment. On Reddit , a blocker can make it so that a user cannot participate at all.
- nullc 4y ago
  Thanks for the correction, -- I've never been a twitter user so I only know second hand and was probably letting my understanding of how reddit works color my understanding.

LegitShady 4y ago

If twitter bans any mentioned of a laptop full of any incriminating evidence right before the election...

themitigating 4y ago
You don't know what's on that laptop and you don't know if it's incriminating
- LegitShady 4y ago
  well yes that was the whole point of censoring discussion of it and the media lying about its providence. "you can't prove" because everyone who should have been interested in the truth was interested in protecting their team.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    The point of censoring the laptop was to help Biden and Twitter was wrong to do it. However the information on the laptop hasn't been released and yet you stated it was incriminating. This is probably why Twitter tried to block the story, because voters will be swayed without evidence but since there are a large number of media outlets the story got out anyway and the attempted censoring amplified the mistrust. Why do you think there is evidence of wrong doing when all the information you have is that he has a laptop?
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      information from the laptop was released...you just didn't see it because it was censored.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Can you provide a link to it?

kleton 4y ago

>If a twitter user blocks another user, is the blocked user being censored because they can't speak to the user that blocked them? Is this infringing on their free speech? Case law in the USA says yes https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter...

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
That outcome is solely because Trump was president and in that case is the government. Blocking someone else from speaking is also a form of speech, there is no right to be heard outside of the government silencing you. If not then I have a right to use your property to tell you what I think and you're unable to do anything about it.

bern4444 4y ago

A parallel situation appears to me as, someone on the street is talking to people walking by, to avoid hearing them I put on noise canceling headphones and walk away so I don't see them. Am I censoring them, no. I am not interrupting their ability to speak freely. I'm simply exercising my right not to listen.

flyingcircus3 4y ago
Banned twitter users are all free to type out what they would have tweeted, while twitter exercises its right not to listen to, and subsequently distribute it. A more apt analogy is that the person is using someone else's public address system to speak to a lot of people efficiently. Third parties may just keep their head down and ignore it, but the owner of the public address system can and should have standards of what their willing to amplify. The owner is also not restricting the speech of a person he refuses to amplify.
- andresp 4y ago
  Sure. As long as they become legally co-responsible for the speech they are choosing to amplify, i.e. as long as they accept they are no longer just a platform.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    This would be a violation of freedom of association, which is why it's not a thing.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > This would be a violation of freedom of association No, actually. We force public businesses to not discriminate based on race, and we have laws that for the telephone company to send almost all calls on its network. Nobody would say that those laws break our rights to freedom of association. Similar laws could be place on social media companies that we already put on telephone companies, even if they wouldn't be exactly the same.