4 ms·

The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk w

• nerdix 4y ago
  How can a public square be privately owned? And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property. Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?
  • daenz 4y ago
    >And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square. Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.
  • jfdbcv 4y ago
    Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of private companies. If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you could argue that these companies have the same rights to prevent people from saying whatever they want on private property. Others believe that these platforms are large and powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and regulatory scrutiny.