3 ms·

It wasn't the response to it was illegal, it was the response to it wasn't right. Noone was saying what they were doing was illegal, they were saying they didn

It wasn't the response to it was illegal, it was the response to it wasn't right. Noone was saying what they were doing was illegal, they were saying they didn't like what was happening and perhaps it should be illegal. So people said "it's a private company, go make your own Twitter". Turns out the network effect is hard to overcome, so the solution is new management.

hannasanarion 4y ago
No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal. All the huxters and fascists who were banned from twitter cried "free speech" and filed lawsuits. Thus the response: it's legal for a private company to moderate their platform. It is not a violation of your first amendment rights for me to refuse to lend you a megaphone. In fact the opposite is true, if the government compelled me to give you my megaphone, that would be a violation of my free speech rights by compelling association. People who used to say "increasing moderation on twitter is good and legal" now say "decreasing moderation on twitter is bad, but legal". Those are not contradictory.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  > No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal. Every dispute of Twitter's moderation you read was claiming it was illegal? Like every single comment? Would you like to link to those comments on here? I can go to a thread and find plenty of arguments of people saying it should be illegal. I have to think that you aren't arguing in good faith because that's such a ridiculous statement. edit: I picked a random thread and found this exchange immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17929780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17929780