Twitter sysadmin: “I’m deleting the Twitter app from all my devices”
twitter.com
twitter.com
Yet, it's clear that twitter cannot maintain it's status as "the place where everybody wants to be because it's where everybody is." without taking steps to protect the quality of the experience and the integrity of it's audience.
The discomfort that Dorsey and Zuckerberg have with enforcing something like a reality principle on their platform may have been praiseworthy and of noble intent; but we're starting to understand that the second order effects of letting people undermine public perceptions of truth and validity have serious consequences that are damaging if not fatal to the society that hosts these platforms and the workers that build and operate them.
Then I think there are two options available: - Censorship - Education
What would you choose, and think works in the long run?
Censorship can, under the right circumstances, be effective but requires either a very delicate hand and be more or less invisible or oppressing the opposition until it exhausted itself one way or another. Sometimes it seems to work out only to end up reinforcing believes, leading to a deeper internalization and radicalization.
Education requires focused, continued, honest effort. It requires rolling that damn boulder up the hill until the hill itself starts to erode under your feet. It's a excruciatingly slow process. And it's so easy to forget that it needs to be a dialog no matter how much you think you're right.
I'm a strong advocate for the latter, but it's easy to see why so many gravitate to the former.
While I don't doubt his good intentions, I can envision many ways of how it will go wrong.
You're laboring under two misconceptions. First, that free speech is a "liberal" value, and second, that social media platforms are run to promote a "liberal" agenda.
The first is mentioned and protected by the Constitution, and often employed by Republicans and the right to defend and justify their speech and politics, so no.
>Are you suggesting twitter regularly purges
As soon as you used the word "purge" your bias becomes apparent, so I'm going to find a better use of my time. Good day.
Yes, they're often used interchangeably in contemporary American politics, but the traditional usage remains. Free speech is absolutely a "liberal value" - and for what it's worth, that's coming from an extreme libertarian that is diametrically opposed to most of the Democratic platform.
I just read another HN article about how amazon just got a $10B pentagon contract. You can't tell me in a time where the public space has moved onto their platforms that they have absolutely nothing to do with the government and so have nothing to do with free speech.
I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government.
The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right.
A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation.
Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.
Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you? Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks are entitled to posting tweets?
Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing.
So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems the breaks.
The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'.
It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis.
[0]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner [1]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...