4 ms·

> he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly baffles

> he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly baffles me. They have no obligation to offer service to anyone, and they have no obligation to ensure freedom of speech, balanced representation, or any other thing you can think of that would ensure everyone gets a voice. General, universal freedom of speech in the US is not a right we have. We are protected via the 1st and 14th amendments from Federal or State governments (respectively) passing laws restricting our speech, which is not the same thing. Even with those amendments, some speech is restricted (hate speech, etc.). There's nothing preventing Twitter from moderating someone off its platform.

toolz 4y ago
You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well. Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.
- saxonww 4y ago
  The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been). You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead. You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation. So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.
slibhb 4y ago
Is the first amendment a good thing? If so, why? Does the reason you come up with magically not apply to twitter? Of course it applies. Twitter is not legally obligated to allow free speech but there are other reasons to do something than legal obligation.
- saxonww 4y ago
  In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. I don't agree that this should be expected or required of businesses, because the dangers and incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter. I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get as many users onto its platform as possible, because that earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced with having to choose between two groups of users to support, and they like one group better than the other, they should be able to choose to withhold service from the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    > In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. You didn't say why. You restated the law. There are all kinds of arguments for free speech. I'll quote Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. That has nothing to do with required and there's no mention of a government, federal or not. People should be allowed to say what they think. That used to be a bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad that we're living through its recession.

toolz 4y ago

You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well. Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.

saxonww 4y ago
The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been). You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead. You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation. So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.

slibhb 4y ago

Is the first amendment a good thing? If so, why? Does the reason you come up with magically not apply to twitter? Of course it applies. Twitter is not legally obligated to allow free speech but there are other reasons to do something than legal obligation.

saxonww 4y ago
In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. I don't agree that this should be expected or required of businesses, because the dangers and incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter. I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get as many users onto its platform as possible, because that earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced with having to choose between two groups of users to support, and they like one group better than the other, they should be able to choose to withhold service from the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.
- slibhb 4y ago
  > In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. You didn't say why. You restated the law. There are all kinds of arguments for free speech. I'll quote Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. That has nothing to do with required and there's no mention of a government, federal or not. People should be allowed to say what they think. That used to be a bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad that we're living through its recession.