catiopatio

44 ms·

541.
by catiopatio 4y ago
What would you call it?
542.
by catiopatio 4y ago
The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship. Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.
543.
by catiopatio 4y ago
They're free to ban bots. That would clearly be a viewpoint-neutral restriction on content/behavior. "Using a bot" isn't a viewpoint, and banning bots is not a viewpoint-based restriction on user expression. This is
544.
by catiopatio 4y ago
The intent of the first amendment was to preserve free speech in the public square; "what the first amendment has to do with this at all" is a desire to preserve that underlying societal principle. Section 230 was a give-away to c
545.
by catiopatio 4y ago
> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see. Twitter users hav
546.
by catiopatio 4y ago
I’m pretty certain your hypothetical victims here would hate us for destroying their country and/or killing their family, not for “taking delight in the implements of destruction.”
547.
by catiopatio 4y ago
Comments like this make me think we should have a “speech tax”, online comment licensing requirements, and a real-name mandate. My favorite “pie-in-the-sky-impossible-in-practice thing”: force anyone advocating for this kind of petty author
548.
by catiopatio 4y ago
What is Ayn Randian about the necessity of self-moderation?