3 ms·
They're free to ban bots. That would clearly be a viewpoint-neutral restriction on content/behavior. "Using a bot" isn't a viewpoint, and banning bots is not a
by catiopatio 4y ago
They're free to ban bots. That would clearly be a viewpoint-neutral restriction on content/behavior. "Using a bot" isn't a viewpoint, and banning bots is not a viewpoint-based restriction on user expression.
This is a very well-explored area of law, and nobody is confused about the definitions of the terms used here. Even the government has reasonable authority to restrict speech based on time, place, or manner (e.g. by disallowing amplified sound systems).
- mojzu 4y agoIsn't having access to Twitter similar to the use of a sound amplification system? Being removed from Twitter does not remove your ability to speak, move to another smaller platform or setup your own platform, it just reduces your potential audience/reduces your volume. While I'm not a fan of the concentration of power in a few big companies, this outcome is in alignment with current definitions of free speech (private entities get to choose who can use their property)