4 ms·

I’m a free speech absolutist, and for that reason I’m against this

fluoridation 3y ago
I'm also a free speech absolutist, and for that reason I think Twitter should be allowed to do this. I think it's dumb for Twitter to do it, but it should be allowed to do it.
- hgs3 3y ago
  It's the adage "they should have the ability to censor but the integrity not to."
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  He shouldn’t be allowed to derail traffic to competitors because that cements Twitter’s dominant position in a anticompetitive, unfair way. The New York Times isn’t really a competitor, so the government shouldn’t step in to stop that. Nevertheless, it’s still dumb as shit
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    NYT is 100% a competitor. People go to both sites looking for news.
- kobalsky 3y ago
  free speech absolutist here, but I think that the rules protecting a bar for refusing service to a rowdy drunkard should NOT be used by a monstruous corporate conglomerate, which in the future could encompass google, amazon, apple, facebook and twitter and more together, to refuse service to some technological pariah that suddenly cannot shop online anymore because they made a comment on a social network.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    I don't think this is quite the same, though, even if Twitter was preventing links to certain external sites from working outright. This is simply Twitter inserting some specific content between the link and the point when the target site finally loads. This is no different from if when you buy a newspaper at a stand the attendant says "by the way, you shouldn't read that newspaper, it sucks!" Is that allowable? What if the stands are actually a chain and all the attendants are instructed by corporate HQ to say that? IMO all these behaviors should be allowable. But, like I said, it's dumb. It's no different from doing a global server-side search-and-replace from "New York Times" to "New Poop Times". It's both transparent and childish.

I'm also a free speech absolutist, and for that reason I think Twitter should be allowed to do this. I think it's dumb for Twitter to do it, but it should be allowed to do it.

hgs3 3y ago
It's the adage "they should have the ability to censor but the integrity not to."
FormerBandmate 3y ago
He shouldn’t be allowed to derail traffic to competitors because that cements Twitter’s dominant position in a anticompetitive, unfair way. The New York Times isn’t really a competitor, so the government shouldn’t step in to stop that. Nevertheless, it’s still dumb as shit
- lockhouse 3y ago
  [flagged]
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  NYT is 100% a competitor. People go to both sites looking for news.
kobalsky 3y ago
free speech absolutist here, but I think that the rules protecting a bar for refusing service to a rowdy drunkard should NOT be used by a monstruous corporate conglomerate, which in the future could encompass google, amazon, apple, facebook and twitter and more together, to refuse service to some technological pariah that suddenly cannot shop online anymore because they made a comment on a social network.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  I don't think this is quite the same, though, even if Twitter was preventing links to certain external sites from working outright. This is simply Twitter inserting some specific content between the link and the point when the target site finally loads. This is no different from if when you buy a newspaper at a stand the attendant says "by the way, you shouldn't read that newspaper, it sucks!" Is that allowable? What if the stands are actually a chain and all the attendants are instructed by corporate HQ to say that? IMO all these behaviors should be allowable. But, like I said, it's dumb. It's no different from doing a global server-side search-and-replace from "New York Times" to "New Poop Times". It's both transparent and childish.