5 ms·

>He's saying that they aren't I would like a few examples of who are those people the author considers to be "members of the cryptography community". it's a p

>He's saying that they aren't I would like a few examples of who are those people the author considers to be "members of the cryptography community". it's a pretty wild claim considering that we owe the current state of cryptography to 1A, and I assume most people involved in the field are aware of that.

habinero 4y ago
Neither Twitter nor Elon are bound by the 1A, so it's irrelevant. Also, why is the claim surprising? Elon has really only paid lip service to free speech, his actions have been all over the place.
joshuamorton 4y ago
Supporting the first amendment, and thinking Elon's changes to Twitter policy are bad are completely coherent beliefs. Any 1A lawyer will tell you that Twitter has never been bound by the first amendment.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  and ISPs are not prohibited by any law from blackholing encrypted traffic in the name of combatting CSAM and hate speech to make the internet safer and more inclusive for everyone would you be cool with it if they did that?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    I think that does violate common carrier statues. But even if it didn't, such an ISP would immediately go out of business since like 90+% of web traffic is encrypted. But yeah like if an ISP did that, if be fine with that because multiple ISPs serve my area so I'd pick a different one. Insofar as there are people who only have access to one ISP, I think the common carrier statues apply. (And actually there are ISPs that advertise filtered dns resolvers for that apply even stricter content filtering, and I think that's fine. I just choose not to use those) But Twitter isn't a monopoly in any sense. It's one of the smaller social media sites, and even if you try to exclude Facebook from twitters niche, TikTok, truth.social, and others are similar enough. As has been clearly demonstrated by trump's choice to not return to Twitter.

habinero 4y ago

Neither Twitter nor Elon are bound by the 1A, so it's irrelevant. Also, why is the claim surprising? Elon has really only paid lip service to free speech, his actions have been all over the place.

joshuamorton 4y ago

Supporting the first amendment, and thinking Elon's changes to Twitter policy are bad are completely coherent beliefs. Any 1A lawyer will tell you that Twitter has never been bound by the first amendment.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
and ISPs are not prohibited by any law from blackholing encrypted traffic in the name of combatting CSAM and hate speech to make the internet safer and more inclusive for everyone would you be cool with it if they did that?
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  I think that does violate common carrier statues. But even if it didn't, such an ISP would immediately go out of business since like 90+% of web traffic is encrypted. But yeah like if an ISP did that, if be fine with that because multiple ISPs serve my area so I'd pick a different one. Insofar as there are people who only have access to one ISP, I think the common carrier statues apply. (And actually there are ISPs that advertise filtered dns resolvers for that apply even stricter content filtering, and I think that's fine. I just choose not to use those) But Twitter isn't a monopoly in any sense. It's one of the smaller social media sites, and even if you try to exclude Facebook from twitters niche, TikTok, truth.social, and others are similar enough. As has been clearly demonstrated by trump's choice to not return to Twitter.