3 ms·

because of the first amendment and stuff. also I didn't say don't ban. I said don't shadowban. that's worse than banning.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago
First amendment doesn't mean you'll be given space anywhere and anytime you want. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. They allowed you to post things onto their property for a while - doesn't mean you have a right to that forever. You're free to set up your own website on your own hosting and/or under your own management - and thus your own rules. But yeah shadowbanning really isn't nice and I agree that it shouldn't be used against actual humans who just wanted to say something. It's an important tool against bots and propagandists (I mean state-sponsored actors here) though.
- high_byte 4y ago
  isn't there some law about freedom of press and social media counts as, well, the media? oh well, not a lawyer. just wanting my visibility back. oh and, it's important against bots on paper. I don't know if you use twitter but it's a mess with respect to bots...
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    Freedom of press applies to the government silencing the press. Your situation is more like if you were writing a column in a newspaper - and then that particular media stops liking your writing for whatever reason. Freedom of press won't help you in that case, but you're free to go make your own platform - that's what freedom of press covers. I don't use Twitter but I run a small platform (oldschool forum) and without shadowbanning it'd be impossible to curb the bots. They immediately react to a classic ban.
    - junofan 4y ago
      Nope, it’s a natural right. Hence the “Congress shall make no law…” part. “Freedom of press won't help you in that case” is nonsensical.
      - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        Freedom of press won't help you get your articles into somebody's newspaper is what I meant, or do you disagree with that? As I understand it freedom of press protects the right to create/publish newspapers, not the right to post content into (any) newspapers. Media are private property and that would infringe on the rights of the owners.
      - afarrell 4y ago
        If Ben Franklin decided that he didn't want to spend his ink publishing someone's newspaper column, who would have forced him to reverse his ban?
Distozion 4y ago
I know it's very American to think constitution applies universally, but unless Twitter becomes a government agency - they owe you nothing. If a private entity de-platforms you, you will have no claim against them, unless you have a contract with them that's been violated (i.e. you pay for the services and they deny the said service). If I stuff a sock in your mouth and tape it up, I'd be liable for the assault & battery, not for the first amendment violation. If a government official stuffs a sock in your mouth and tape it up - you might have a chance to claim first amendment violation, but even then it might be a stretch :)
- bezier-curve 4y ago
  Maybe Twitter doesn't owe individuals anything in particular but as a collective society I think we should be asking if it's okay for private companies that control a lot of online discourse for them to silently ban with no transparency. How do we know they're not making decisions based on a conflict of interest? Maybe there's some area for social media regulation.
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    I'm afraid this might get bad quickly, with people demanding to post their stuff on my server and me having to keep it there and online - what if I just want to turn it off? So far my own server is sacrosanct, and as a hacker that runs a lot of my own services and has a little platform for my gaming community, I don't want to see that protection broken.
  - Distozion 4y ago
    I'm not arguing that tech giants shouldn't run the risk of becoming public utilities - after all, quite a lot of their success could be attributed to utilising public resources, either directly or indirectly (user data, monopolistic approach to business, lack of relevant regulation at the time they were in their explosive growth periods, etc). I could even see it as a potential way to balance public and private interests - if you try to consolidate too much - you run the risk of losing your private status and becomes a mix of private/public company, where some of the protections afforded to private businesses no longer apply. There have been examples of these things happening, notably how railway became so dominant around the world that governments intervened and nationalised them. There's no way of knowing how long the current tech giant status quo will last - will it get worse or will they get slapped down.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago

First amendment doesn't mean you'll be given space anywhere and anytime you want. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. They allowed you to post things onto their property for a while - doesn't mean you have a right to that forever. You're free to set up your own website on your own hosting and/or under your own management - and thus your own rules. But yeah shadowbanning really isn't nice and I agree that it shouldn't be used against actual humans who just wanted to say something. It's an important tool against bots and propagandists (I mean state-sponsored actors here) though.

high_byte 4y ago
isn't there some law about freedom of press and social media counts as, well, the media? oh well, not a lawyer. just wanting my visibility back. oh and, it's important against bots on paper. I don't know if you use twitter but it's a mess with respect to bots...
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  Freedom of press applies to the government silencing the press. Your situation is more like if you were writing a column in a newspaper - and then that particular media stops liking your writing for whatever reason. Freedom of press won't help you in that case, but you're free to go make your own platform - that's what freedom of press covers. I don't use Twitter but I run a small platform (oldschool forum) and without shadowbanning it'd be impossible to curb the bots. They immediately react to a classic ban.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Nope, it’s a natural right. Hence the “Congress shall make no law…” part. “Freedom of press won't help you in that case” is nonsensical.
    - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
      Freedom of press won't help you get your articles into somebody's newspaper is what I meant, or do you disagree with that? As I understand it freedom of press protects the right to create/publish newspapers, not the right to post content into (any) newspapers. Media are private property and that would infringe on the rights of the owners.
    - afarrell 4y ago
      If Ben Franklin decided that he didn't want to spend his ink publishing someone's newspaper column, who would have forced him to reverse his ban?

Distozion 4y ago

I know it's very American to think constitution applies universally, but unless Twitter becomes a government agency - they owe you nothing. If a private entity de-platforms you, you will have no claim against them, unless you have a contract with them that's been violated (i.e. you pay for the services and they deny the said service). If I stuff a sock in your mouth and tape it up, I'd be liable for the assault & battery, not for the first amendment violation. If a government official stuffs a sock in your mouth and tape it up - you might have a chance to claim first amendment violation, but even then it might be a stretch :)

bezier-curve 4y ago
Maybe Twitter doesn't owe individuals anything in particular but as a collective society I think we should be asking if it's okay for private companies that control a lot of online discourse for them to silently ban with no transparency. How do we know they're not making decisions based on a conflict of interest? Maybe there's some area for social media regulation.
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  I'm afraid this might get bad quickly, with people demanding to post their stuff on my server and me having to keep it there and online - what if I just want to turn it off? So far my own server is sacrosanct, and as a hacker that runs a lot of my own services and has a little platform for my gaming community, I don't want to see that protection broken.
- Distozion 4y ago
  I'm not arguing that tech giants shouldn't run the risk of becoming public utilities - after all, quite a lot of their success could be attributed to utilising public resources, either directly or indirectly (user data, monopolistic approach to business, lack of relevant regulation at the time they were in their explosive growth periods, etc). I could even see it as a potential way to balance public and private interests - if you try to consolidate too much - you run the risk of losing your private status and becomes a mix of private/public company, where some of the protections afforded to private businesses no longer apply. There have been examples of these things happening, notably how railway became so dominant around the world that governments intervened and nationalised them. There's no way of knowing how long the current tech giant status quo will last - will it get worse or will they get slapped down.