4 ms·

So this site was a simple timeline of the actions Matt Mullenweg took regarding the recent mess. It makes it clear what kind of deal people are getting into by

by eriri 2y ago

So this site was a simple timeline of the actions Matt Mullenweg took regarding the recent mess. It makes it clear what kind of deal people are getting into by using WordPress, which is crucial considering that half the internet depends on it. There's no excuse for threatening to doxx the author for this, and it's ironic considering that Mullenweg himself has accused others of stepping on his free speech rights, according to his own blog. > 2024-10-20 > Matt accuses WP Engine of attempting to curtail his First Amendment rights https://archive.md/IyFla https://archive.md/IyFla

bongodongobob 2y ago
It sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment. No business can curtail your first amendment rights because they are not the government. And no, twitter, Facebook, etc are not so big that it involves free speech. They aren't the government, period.
- 4hg4ufxhy 2y ago
  But the government can tell a business to do it, like twitter used to do in 2020.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The government can ask. Twitter frequently turned them down.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment Yup. Private parties can curtail your right to free speech. But not your rights under the First Amendment.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Not really. You don't have a right to post things on Twitter or shout at people in Wendy's. A twitter moderator or a Wendy's manager isn't the government and you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios. I get what you're saying, but it's not technically correct.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios One, this is obviously debated. Two, expectations don’t define rights. I have no expectation of freedom of political expression in North Korea. > it's not technically correct It absolutely is. If you’re over at my house and I tell you to stop talking about something, that’s curtailing your free speech. Freedom of speech is a millennias-old concept. So is freedom of assembly. The latter restricts the former, fundamentally, as it implies a right not to listen. What constitutes a freedom per se is separate from the “inalienable” right. That “natural” right, in turn, is different from the legal right.
      - bongodongobob 2y ago
        That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing. I'm not here to argue semantics.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing It’s really not. Our modern conception of freedom of speech derives from English Parliamentary privileges. (See Coke and Erasmus.) Those, in turn, derived from Athenian democratic principles, where “just talking” was the system of government. In the most technical of senses, you are incorrect on what freedom of speech and the right to free speech mean. (Which are, again, distinct from both one another and legal protections of free speech, including the First Amendment.)
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- LudwigNagasena 2y ago
  Can you elaborate? What does that have to do with the situation at hand?

by eriri 2y ago

bongodongobob 2y ago

It sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment. No business can curtail your first amendment rights because they are not the government. And no, twitter, Facebook, etc are not so big that it involves free speech. They aren't the government, period.

4hg4ufxhy 2y ago
But the government can tell a business to do it, like twitter used to do in 2020.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The government can ask. Twitter frequently turned them down.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> sad that so many people don't understand the 1st amendment Yup. Private parties can curtail your right to free speech. But not your rights under the First Amendment.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Not really. You don't have a right to post things on Twitter or shout at people in Wendy's. A twitter moderator or a Wendy's manager isn't the government and you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios. I get what you're saying, but it's not technically correct.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you have no expectation of freedom of speech or expression in either of those scenarios One, this is obviously debated. Two, expectations don’t define rights. I have no expectation of freedom of political expression in North Korea. > it's not technically correct It absolutely is. If you’re over at my house and I tell you to stop talking about something, that’s curtailing your free speech. Freedom of speech is a millennias-old concept. So is freedom of assembly. The latter restricts the former, fundamentally, as it implies a right not to listen. What constitutes a freedom per se is separate from the “inalienable” right. That “natural” right, in turn, is different from the legal right.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing. I'm not here to argue semantics.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > That's just talking. Freedom of speech is a different thing It’s really not. Our modern conception of freedom of speech derives from English Parliamentary privileges. (See Coke and Erasmus.) Those, in turn, derived from Athenian democratic principles, where “just talking” was the system of government. In the most technical of senses, you are incorrect on what freedom of speech and the right to free speech mean. (Which are, again, distinct from both one another and legal protections of free speech, including the First Amendment.)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
LudwigNagasena 2y ago
Can you elaborate? What does that have to do with the situation at hand?