3 ms·

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 thi

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?

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?