4 ms·

The main argument of the decision is simple: If Twitter can close your account for disagreeing with you, for say, supporting LGBT, then the phone company, etc.,

The main argument of the decision is simple: If Twitter can close your account for disagreeing with you, for say, supporting LGBT, then the phone company, etc., can too. And this right to crush disagreement comes from the first amendment!? Is censorship free speech, like war is peace and freedom is slavery? Does the first amendment just mean that censorship is in the corporate layer instead of the state layer?

medler 4y ago
> And this right to crush disagreement comes from the first amendment!? That is correct. Under the first amendment, the government cannot force a website to host content it doesn’t want to host. If I post rule-breaking comments on HN, HN is allowed to delete them. This is the pro-free-speech, small-government solution. The alternative is having big brother step in to stand over dang’s shoulder and say “that comment you have to keep. You must continue displaying it in perpetuity.” > Does the first amendment just mean that censorship is in the corporate layer instead of the state layer? This is also correct. The first amendment limits the state’s ability to control speech. It does not limit a corporation’s actions. The “corporate censorship” you speak of is not censorship at all, since you can always vote with your feet and patronize a website whose moderation policies you prefer. Or you can even start your own website and moderate it as you please.
- SomeHacker44 4y ago
  At some point "you can even start your own website and moderate it as you please" doesn't work in practice. You have to get bandwidth & addresses/routing from somewhere and DNS registration somewhere at the very least - and those places can also choose to censor you. I am not saying this is a bad thing. I am saying that as a practical matter, while it's hard for the government to stop you from walking to the street corner and pontificating, I have not personally seen any easy way to get all the necessities of "internet pontification" - even paid - without potential or even likelihood for corporate censorship here in the USA.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Just email or DM the people you want to pontificate to. No censorship. This is the same as it has always been. If you want to stand on your street corner and rant, you can do it. If you want to publish your rants in a big newspaper that you don't own, you need the newspaper's approval.
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    Wrong. It's always worked that way. Well, at least since the Fairness Doctrine went away. You've always had the right to speak freely curbside. Until now, nobody has had to pay to distribute your free speech.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > Under the first amendment, the government cannot force a website to host content it doesn’t want to host. Apparently shops, restaurants, hotels can be forced to have patrons they don't want. Even if those patrons are talking about things they don't like, whole on the premises!

medler 4y ago

> And this right to crush disagreement comes from the first amendment!? That is correct. Under the first amendment, the government cannot force a website to host content it doesn’t want to host. If I post rule-breaking comments on HN, HN is allowed to delete them. This is the pro-free-speech, small-government solution. The alternative is having big brother step in to stand over dang’s shoulder and say “that comment you have to keep. You must continue displaying it in perpetuity.” > Does the first amendment just mean that censorship is in the corporate layer instead of the state layer? This is also correct. The first amendment limits the state’s ability to control speech. It does not limit a corporation’s actions. The “corporate censorship” you speak of is not censorship at all, since you can always vote with your feet and patronize a website whose moderation policies you prefer. Or you can even start your own website and moderate it as you please.

SomeHacker44 4y ago
At some point "you can even start your own website and moderate it as you please" doesn't work in practice. You have to get bandwidth & addresses/routing from somewhere and DNS registration somewhere at the very least - and those places can also choose to censor you. I am not saying this is a bad thing. I am saying that as a practical matter, while it's hard for the government to stop you from walking to the street corner and pontificating, I have not personally seen any easy way to get all the necessities of "internet pontification" - even paid - without potential or even likelihood for corporate censorship here in the USA.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Just email or DM the people you want to pontificate to. No censorship. This is the same as it has always been. If you want to stand on your street corner and rant, you can do it. If you want to publish your rants in a big newspaper that you don't own, you need the newspaper's approval.
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Wrong. It's always worked that way. Well, at least since the Fairness Doctrine went away. You've always had the right to speak freely curbside. Until now, nobody has had to pay to distribute your free speech.
puffoflogic 4y ago
> Under the first amendment, the government cannot force a website to host content it doesn’t want to host. Apparently shops, restaurants, hotels can be forced to have patrons they don't want. Even if those patrons are talking about things they don't like, whole on the premises!