Hacker News Reader

Comment by RonanTheGrey | Hacker News Reader

When the internet has a publicly owned space that no private entity controls, you get to make that argument. Until then, platforms like Twitter are the next best thing we have to a public square (and in fact really the ONLY online public square), and that means that when our public political figures speak their voices must be made heard.

Arguing otherwise simply justifies using the rules as a sledgehammer to silence voices you don't like. The WH Press Secretary is a very, very loud voice that should be listened to whether you like it or not. She said nothing mean, nothing cruel, nothing divisive or illegal or inciting violence, she linked to a news story by the 4th largest publication in the US. This is about as vanilla as you can get and it is completely unjustifiable to block her account just for that.

View on HN

==The WH Press Secretary is a very, very loud voice that should be listened to whether you like it or not.==

This sounds pretty authoritarian. I can think of plenty of times this wouldn’t be true. What if she directly invited violence or knowingly spread foreign propaganda?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-exam...

How exactly is it authoritarian to say that the press secretary for the president of the United States shouldn't have their means of communications, on what's become essentially a public commons, rate limited by a corporation? The problem with your argument, and frankly more than half of the arguments in this clusterfuck of a comment thread, is that if we want to go that way we have to argue in favor of corporate sovereignty given the power these companies have. That's gross to me, for probably a dozen or so reasons.

Because nobody should be above the rules they agree to before using. You are arguing for political immunity based on holding a job that is neither elected nor approved by elected officials. That is authoritarian, whether or not you find it “gross”.

Your desires to insult those who disagree with you and fast forward to some “corporate sovereignty” fantasy aren’t relevant to the discussion of whether this action broke the terms Twitter has laid out.

==if we want to go that way we have to argue in favor of corporate sovereignty given the power these companies have.==

Or, we just allow them to manage their users, user agreements, and platform like we do other businesses. Your argument is to take that power away from companies and give it to government.

Who is talking about political immunity? I want to hear what my officials are saying! You would deny me that right. Who is the authoritarian here?

If it is not clear to you yet, there is no recourse to logical discussion. The desire to "silence" certain voices has been expressed clearly, and influential institutions have already led the way in this regard.

I predict that your views will likely find a far more receptive audiance in the generations that will follow. What is happening now is the result of decades of pedagogical prepration, and generations that really do not know what it is like to live under authoritarian regimes or cultures.

Those of us who immigrated to United States precisely to escape authoritarianism recognize the signs full and well. It is quite unsettling to see what is happening in this nation.

I know! I never thought I’d see unmarked government agents roaming American cities disappearing people [1]. Maybe the uproar over a private company enforcing their TOS is actually meant to distract from the true authoritarian threat?

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...

"[A] private company enforcing their TOS" is a disingenuous characterization of the issue. A de-facto public communication platform -- the "consumer product" in your 'technicalities' world view -- is obstructing disemination of expression.

Unmarked officers of the state grabbing people off the streets is not acceptable, either.

Both are features of mickey mouse states, the world over. There are various assumptions we make, when we try and make sense of the world. Most of these assumptions are based on good faith. Suspending disbelief regarding the unspoken possibilities for actual dynamics in play affords the insight that the above 2 items are not necessarily at odds for some interested actors.

==“[A] private company enforcing their TOS" is a disingenuous characterization of the issue. A de-facto public communication platform -- the "consumer product" in your 'technicalities' world view -- is obstructing disemination of expression.==

It is obstructing the dissemination of things that break its TOS. Should people be allowed to dox others on Twitter? People get banned for calls for violence pretty frequently.

What makes Twitter a “de-facto communication platform”? Is tiktok? Skype? Instagram? Twitter isn’t a public square, but the internet is, and this story is readily available on the internet.

Then you probably want to know that your public servants are doing that, don't you? Rather than not know at all? Authoritarian would be you're not allowed to know at all. I'm pretty sure we tried that sometime in history, oh that just rings a bell... and it didn't work out so well then.

Or didn't you realize that this insanity cuts both ways?

The internet itself is the public square. There is an immense amount of publicly owned space online. Take for example:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

One of thousands of places online that the white house fully controls, where the press secretary can say whatever she wants, accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

For some private individuals a twitter ban, coupled with bans from a dozen other internet hubs, might be a difficult hurdle to overcome, as starting a new site and then getting traffic to it is difficult due to network effects. But to claim that public officials have no means of having their voices heard besides twitter is patently absurd.

Hey, when everyone is hanging out over at whitehouse.gov, let me know.

Until then your argument is beside the point.

> Arguing otherwise simply justifies using the rules as a sledgehammer to silence voices you don't like.

Arguably, this is the purpose of every rule ever made in any context (if you follow the chain of reasoning far enough)

Twitter.com is not a public square. It’s a private property and they can kick your ass off whenever they feel like it, for any reason.

You know perfectly well that that's not a satisfying argument to what I said. Try again.

And, you're wrong by the way. Courts have already ruled more than once that it is, which is why Trump's account still exists.

You're wrong by the way. Trump's account exists because Twitter makes money off of him.

Are you aware of the term "public easement"? In many jurisdictions you are not able to block public access to your "private property" once the public gets accustomed to accessing that property. Same thing should apply here. You don't get to just open your private property for everyone to use and then close it for people you don't like politically many years later.

Twitter has a terms of service that you must agree to before using. These aren’t the same thing.

Twitter has already, on several occasions, been forced by the courts on "public square" grounds to take actions Twitter didn't want to for political reasons.

You're looking at the leaf on the tree and assuring everyone you see the forest.

Section 203 made them a public square because unlike the private property who would be liable for whats done on that land twitter gets a pass. And its looking more and more like they shouldn't. And if that happens twitter wont exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com