6 ms·

What core principles have been lost? If you want to argue Twitter is a public space where public figures should be able to say whatever they want, I'm going to

What core principles have been lost? If you want to argue Twitter is a public space where public figures should be able to say whatever they want, I'm going to argue your front lawn is too.

mysecretaccount 4y ago
ISPs are private businesses too. Would you be fine with ISPs regulating speech?
- Cd00d 4y ago
  I'd delay that discussion until a time when ISPs don't tend to be regional monopolies.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    Yes, this is my point. You could make a similar argument about the social media oligopolies.
- tmp_anon_22 4y ago
  With ISPs I think of the precedent of TV and Radio being censored from their inception, pirate broadcasting non-withstanding. Are we going to say free speech was lost in 1920 when you couldn't say ** on the radio?
- lisper 4y ago
  ISPs are utilities. There is only one internet, just as there is only one power grid, only one road network, only one water distribution network. But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. That is the reason that private censorship on social media platforms is acceptable but censorship by ISPs is not.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    > But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. There is one Twitter. Losing access to Twitter, YouTube, etc. looks like losing access to a utility to me. And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. One could just as easily say "ISPs are not utilities or monopolies, you can start your own intranet easily with OSS!"
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that Twitter is irreplaceable in the same way an ISP is. Twitter is not the Internet.
      - mysecretaccount 4y ago
        Although you are likely highly overrating how irreplaceable ISPs are (the situation is bad but I have switched between several in this one home over the years), that's fine. I'm saying that Twitter being a private business does not mean that it should be shielded from any criticism of its speech practices for the same way that ISPs are not similarly exempt.
        unethical_ban 4y ago
        Starting a blog is a lot easier than starting an ISP. I am ignoring the network effects because my metric is reachability and freedom of expression, not the power of the social network.
        mysecretaccount 4y ago
        If your metric is reachability, it seems like a mistake to ignore network effects. Although you raise a good point: reachability can be mostly extinguished by access to both ISPs and the handful of large social networks.
    - juve1996 4y ago
      I disagree. There are plenty of outlets, multiple TV channels, multiple social networks, newspapers, websites, etc, for Trump to get his message across. > And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. Apparently it is - Trump started his very own, just like that. didn't even take that long.
jstummbillig 4y ago
Which would be a really bad argument, considering that their front lawn is not designed for public use, while Twitter actually requires it.
- camdat 4y ago
  So the requirement for free speech in your mind is simply that the setting be used by the public? Do sports arenas, shopping malls, and private squares not kick out people for acting inappropriate? America is fully subservient to corporations. Out rights end at their doorways, including freedom of assembly and speech. To say social media is an exception because it applies rules equally to previously exempt demographics is a joke.
  - jstummbillig 4y ago
    > So the requirement for free speech in your mind is simply that the setting be used by the public? Nope. I just thought the analogy was quite bad.
  - sudden_dystopia 4y ago
    You are confusing free speech with trespassing. You can say whatever you want on private property, but you have to be invited onto property in order to not be trespassing. The invite can be rescinded and you can be asked to leave. You can’t literally trespass on digital spaces as the law is written. If people violate the TOS I have no problem in removing them. But when things like saying that men cannot get pregnant is hate speech, you are simply going to get some pushback that is not hate speech and people shouldn’t be removed.
aww_dang 4y ago
Let us entertain the hypothetical where Twitter is private property and can include or exclude individuals based upon their own criteria. Similarly, let us imagine that your garden is your own private property and you can ask individuals to leave your BBQ for whatever whimsical reason you choose. You can open Twitter to the public, just as you can open your BBQ to the public.
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
Apples and oranges. Protesting on a front lawn is not a problem because of what is said, it’s a problem because they are trespassing. Good luck protesting on lawns, try not to get bitten by a dog, arrested, or worse.

What core principles have been lost? If you want to argue Twitter is a public space where public figures should be able to say whatever they want, I'm going to argue your front lawn is too.

mysecretaccount 4y ago

ISPs are private businesses too. Would you be fine with ISPs regulating speech?

Cd00d 4y ago
I'd delay that discussion until a time when ISPs don't tend to be regional monopolies.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  Yes, this is my point. You could make a similar argument about the social media oligopolies.
tmp_anon_22 4y ago
With ISPs I think of the precedent of TV and Radio being censored from their inception, pirate broadcasting non-withstanding. Are we going to say free speech was lost in 1920 when you couldn't say ** on the radio?
lisper 4y ago
ISPs are utilities. There is only one internet, just as there is only one power grid, only one road network, only one water distribution network. But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. That is the reason that private censorship on social media platforms is acceptable but censorship by ISPs is not.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  > But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. There is one Twitter. Losing access to Twitter, YouTube, etc. looks like losing access to a utility to me. And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. One could just as easily say "ISPs are not utilities or monopolies, you can start your own intranet easily with OSS!"
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that Twitter is irreplaceable in the same way an ISP is. Twitter is not the Internet.
    - mysecretaccount 4y ago
      Although you are likely highly overrating how irreplaceable ISPs are (the situation is bad but I have switched between several in this one home over the years), that's fine. I'm saying that Twitter being a private business does not mean that it should be shielded from any criticism of its speech practices for the same way that ISPs are not similarly exempt.
      - unethical_ban 4y ago
        Starting a blog is a lot easier than starting an ISP. I am ignoring the network effects because my metric is reachability and freedom of expression, not the power of the social network.
        mysecretaccount 4y ago
        If your metric is reachability, it seems like a mistake to ignore network effects. Although you raise a good point: reachability can be mostly extinguished by access to both ISPs and the handful of large social networks.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    I disagree. There are plenty of outlets, multiple TV channels, multiple social networks, newspapers, websites, etc, for Trump to get his message across. > And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. Apparently it is - Trump started his very own, just like that. didn't even take that long.

jstummbillig 4y ago

Which would be a really bad argument, considering that their front lawn is not designed for public use, while Twitter actually requires it.

camdat 4y ago
So the requirement for free speech in your mind is simply that the setting be used by the public? Do sports arenas, shopping malls, and private squares not kick out people for acting inappropriate? America is fully subservient to corporations. Out rights end at their doorways, including freedom of assembly and speech. To say social media is an exception because it applies rules equally to previously exempt demographics is a joke.
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  > So the requirement for free speech in your mind is simply that the setting be used by the public? Nope. I just thought the analogy was quite bad.
- sudden_dystopia 4y ago
  You are confusing free speech with trespassing. You can say whatever you want on private property, but you have to be invited onto property in order to not be trespassing. The invite can be rescinded and you can be asked to leave. You can’t literally trespass on digital spaces as the law is written. If people violate the TOS I have no problem in removing them. But when things like saying that men cannot get pregnant is hate speech, you are simply going to get some pushback that is not hate speech and people shouldn’t be removed.

aww_dang 4y ago

Let us entertain the hypothetical where Twitter is private property and can include or exclude individuals based upon their own criteria. Similarly, let us imagine that your garden is your own private property and you can ask individuals to leave your BBQ for whatever whimsical reason you choose. You can open Twitter to the public, just as you can open your BBQ to the public.

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

Apples and oranges. Protesting on a front lawn is not a problem because of what is said, it’s a problem because they are trespassing. Good luck protesting on lawns, try not to get bitten by a dog, arrested, or worse.