4 ms·

Yeah, so? It's THEIR website. It doesn't have to be fair. Why are all these brand new people to the internet trying to tell websites they have to allow things

Yeah, so? It's THEIR website. It doesn't have to be fair. Why are all these brand new people to the internet trying to tell websites they have to allow things that they don't want? As much as I hate censorship, the fact is it's THEIR website and they can do whatever they want with it. I don't have to go there. I can make my own website if I don't like a particular site. As a user of the internet since 1995, I don't find anything in these "twitter files" interesting. Now Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden's books on NSA surveillance on the internet? I find those much more interesting and much more serious than this swill.

goodluckchuck 4y ago
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.
- nirvgorilla 4y ago
  It really doesn't matter. As much as I don't like it, someone can still use things like rot13 to get their messages out on twitter to others. You could also link a youtube video that has material that "biden's team" doesn't want on twitter. If I came to your house and before I got there, the president called you and told you NOT to let me in, you may or may not do it. It's up to you. It's still YOUR HOUSE and you have the ultimate choice. That's all a website is.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I suppose the question is the relationship and history between the parties. If there's an implicit "or else" in the president's demand, things look differently, don't they? With that kind of power delta, there's always an implied "or else", I believe.
- kevincox 4y ago
  Just because politicians asked them too and they decided it was in their best interest to comply doesn't make it much if any less their site. Untill actual laws are passed they can choose to comply or not as they see fit.
jessaustin 4y ago
As a user of the internet since 1995... Since I had a webpage in 1994, can I reject this authority? b^) Twitter is dumb and more avoidable than G or FB, but it does seem to have some effect on the chattering class. If it is problematic when "bad" facebook moderation affects elections (I'm not saying that has ever happened, nor that it would in fact be problematic), it seems possibly problematic when "bad" twitter moderation affects elections. Greenwald and Snowden seem to care about this? Although of course they care more about our ongoing persecution of Assange.

goodluckchuck 4y ago

But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.

nirvgorilla 4y ago
It really doesn't matter. As much as I don't like it, someone can still use things like rot13 to get their messages out on twitter to others. You could also link a youtube video that has material that "biden's team" doesn't want on twitter. If I came to your house and before I got there, the president called you and told you NOT to let me in, you may or may not do it. It's up to you. It's still YOUR HOUSE and you have the ultimate choice. That's all a website is.
- luckylion 4y ago
  I suppose the question is the relationship and history between the parties. If there's an implicit "or else" in the president's demand, things look differently, don't they? With that kind of power delta, there's always an implied "or else", I believe.
kevincox 4y ago
Just because politicians asked them too and they decided it was in their best interest to comply doesn't make it much if any less their site. Untill actual laws are passed they can choose to comply or not as they see fit.

jessaustin 4y ago

As a user of the internet since 1995... Since I had a webpage in 1994, can I reject this authority? b^) Twitter is dumb and more avoidable than G or FB, but it does seem to have some effect on the chattering class. If it is problematic when "bad" facebook moderation affects elections (I'm not saying that has ever happened, nor that it would in fact be problematic), it seems possibly problematic when "bad" twitter moderation affects elections. Greenwald and Snowden seem to care about this? Although of course they care more about our ongoing persecution of Assange.