4 ms·

As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people, should not have rights, and should be treated as privately owned/operated state agencies with narrowly-def

As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people, should not have rights, and should be treated as privately owned/operated state agencies with narrowly-defined powers enumerated in their charters. They should be subject to immediate dissolution should they overstep their authority -- and the executives responsible should face criminal liability.

alistairSH 4y ago
How does banning Trump, Nazis, and outright liars overstep Twitter's authority? I agree that a companies are not people but they also aren't the proverbial public-square. Why should Twitter be subject to laws that the daily newspaper is not? WaPo, USAToday, etc aren't required to publish Trump's rants, Nazi propaganda, or anti-science nonsense.
- rakeman 4y ago
  I agree with this one, as much as I hate to say it. Twitter pays to host its website, the infrastructure, advertising, etc. So just as a company would have you escorted off the premises or arrested for saying something they don't like, Twitter should have the right to moderate their platform as they see fit. Though my personal belief is that no information should be censored except child pornography.
  - Rapzid 4y ago
    Yeah, I supported their right to ban Trump and actually agreed with it. I support Elon's right to unban him if he purchases Twitter too even though I'm of mixed feelings about it. Disassociation is a type of speech and the other, very important IMHO, side of the 1st amendment coin.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  I’ll also add that there is an argument to be made that Twitter (and FB, etc) is the public square in 2022+. But, if that’s the case, I’m not sure what we do about it - forcing a private corporation to host speech is doesn’t want associate with doesn’t feel correct. Maybe a government buy-out of Twitter? Make it officially part of the public square? Feels wrong too, but less wrong than forcing Twitter-the-corporation to do our bidding?
  - MrMan 4y ago
    the government should also buy MySpace and /.

alistairSH 4y ago

How does banning Trump, Nazis, and outright liars overstep Twitter's authority? I agree that a companies are not people but they also aren't the proverbial public-square. Why should Twitter be subject to laws that the daily newspaper is not? WaPo, USAToday, etc aren't required to publish Trump's rants, Nazi propaganda, or anti-science nonsense.

rakeman 4y ago
I agree with this one, as much as I hate to say it. Twitter pays to host its website, the infrastructure, advertising, etc. So just as a company would have you escorted off the premises or arrested for saying something they don't like, Twitter should have the right to moderate their platform as they see fit. Though my personal belief is that no information should be censored except child pornography.
- Rapzid 4y ago
  Yeah, I supported their right to ban Trump and actually agreed with it. I support Elon's right to unban him if he purchases Twitter too even though I'm of mixed feelings about it. Disassociation is a type of speech and the other, very important IMHO, side of the 1st amendment coin.
alistairSH 4y ago
I’ll also add that there is an argument to be made that Twitter (and FB, etc) is the public square in 2022+. But, if that’s the case, I’m not sure what we do about it - forcing a private corporation to host speech is doesn’t want associate with doesn’t feel correct. Maybe a government buy-out of Twitter? Make it officially part of the public square? Feels wrong too, but less wrong than forcing Twitter-the-corporation to do our bidding?
- MrMan 4y ago
  the government should also buy MySpace and /.