If someone spams twitter with billions of messages, to the point where just about the only thing anyone sees are this one person's messages, would it be censorship to ban that person from making posts? Is this infringing on their free speech?
If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person? Is this infringing on their free speech?
If someone posts information that misleads people about when and where to vote in an election, is it censorship to ban that person from posting? Is this infringing on their free speech?
To be fair, the primary effect of twitter blocking isn't to prevent the user performing the block from seeing the person tweeting, the primary effect is preventing the blocked user from commenting on particular parts of the site-- and preventing third parties from seeing their messages.
Reddit recently switched to this model too: if you block someone they can't comment in threads where you've participated unless they're a moderator.
I understand why-- just blinding yourself to someone harassing you just lets them defame you unchallenged. But a block function that mutes people is vulnerable to abuse.
> If someone posts instructions on how to make explosives using common household items, is it censorship to ban that person
god forbid anyone get access to information available for free in every public library in the US, or with 30 seconds searching online.
On Reddit , a blocker can make it so that a user cannot participate at all.
Why do you think there is evidence of wrong doing when all the information you have is that he has a laptop?
Case law in the USA says yes https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter...
Blocking someone else from speaking is also a form of speech, there is no right to be heard outside of the government silencing you.
If not then I have a right to use your property to tell you what I think and you're unable to do anything about it.
Am I censoring them, no. I am not interrupting their ability to speak freely. I'm simply exercising my right not to listen.
No, actually. We force public businesses to not discriminate based on race, and we have laws that for the telephone company to send almost all calls on its network.
Nobody would say that those laws break our rights to freedom of association.
Similar laws could be place on social media companies that we already put on telephone companies, even if they wouldn't be exactly the same.
I said that companies are already forced to do certain things, but few people would say that this is some huge infringement on free speech.
Ex:telephone companies are forced to carry certain calls, but most people would not say that there is a huge free speech infringement here.
Therefore, these existing laws could be expanded to other things like social media.
So, in other words, this statement is wrong "This would be a violation of freedom of association".
People do not pay for the services in question here, so the idea they have a right to them is on shaky ground to begin with - i.e. if I give away free lemonade, I'm under no obligations to give it away to any specific persons.
But more importantly, there's a big difference between a transactive exchange between two parties, and a broadcast one: the telephone company is not obligated to advertise who uses their services or how they use them, whereas Facebook is a publishing platform that does - which goes to the question of association. You can discreetly use a telephone line: you cant discreetly use Facebook without Facebook branding.
So what does the proposed law then look like? Facebook is obligated to host your content next to the "Facebook" logo? Does the logo have to be there? Does the service have to be similar? What if Facebook decide your content just doesn't qualify for their branded tier, and instead will be hosted on "QuietBook.com", which they don't SEO optimize? Suppose you have a comment section on a personal website - why are you now allowed to remove comments there but Facebook isn't allowed to remove comments from it's service?
> So what does the proposed law then look like?
Well, what we could do, is take existing laws and extend them to social media companies. Such as the existing common carrier laws, or anti-discrimination laws.
> if I give away free lemonade, I'm under no obligations to give it away to any specific persons.
If you had a lemonade store, in a mall, and you were giving away free lemonade, but you refused to give away lemonade to black people, then you absolutely would get in trouble with the law.
Like c'mon. How did you not think of that immediately? I even referenced this in a previous comment.
> Facebook is obligated to host your content next to the "Facebook" logo? Does the logo have to be there?
Well, just take every single question that you asked, and apply them to if a store wanted to treat black people differently, and then you have your answer.
So whatever hypothetical you have, imagine if it was about a company being forced to follow certain laws, that prevent them from discriminating against black people.
And the answer to these hypothetical, is that if a company attempted to do these things to black people, then it would likely be disallowed.
And very few people would say that there is some large infringement on these companies rights in that situation.
You can write a law to do whatever you want, but the reason rights like freedom of association are enumerated is because things will go very, very wrong quickly when you undermine them. Freedom of speech is protection from government sanction for voicing your ideas, but freedom of association is protection of your being compelled to act due to the arbitrary desires of others.
> If you had a lemonade store, in a mall, and you were giving away free lemonade, but you refused to give away lemonade to black people, then you absolutely would get in trouble with the law.
No you wouldn't. You'd be in trouble if you ejected people from the premises on the basis of race, but there is no case-law which requires you to give away goods and services to anyone. But this comparison is completely irrelevant because "your opinions" are not a protected class, nor would they ever be.
That's what I find so frustrating about this debate. The people who claim to support free speech actually support more censorship by the Government. They seem to want the Government to be the sole judge of what is acceptable to say. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want for nobody to be prevented from saying anything and for nobody to be forced to help anyone say anything. Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.
You have mis-interpreted.
People are saying that they should be treated like the telephone companies.
Do you think that the telephone companies are some massive apparatis of censorship and anti-free speech?
I don't think most people would say that. I think that would people would say that the laws that force the telephone company to do certain things, results in very little censorship of the phone network.
> Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.
So then, telephone companies.
Do you think that the laws regarding telephone companies are some massive infringement on free speech? Because I think most people would say the opposite, that are laws regarding them help prevent censorship.
Telephone companies do not allow normal customers to broadcast messages. A telephone call is a targeted communication. You are calling one person, or perhaps a handful of people. Additionally, there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.
> there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.
None of what you just said changes the idea that it is pretty silly to claim that these types of laws that force telephone companies to send certain messages are some huge infringement on free speech.
The laws that apply to phone companies are well accepted in society. And they could be expanded to other large communication networks, as they currently are well accepted and are not considered huge infringements on free speech, nor do people say that they support censorship.
I can't think of any other examples of this "trend"?
I also haven't seen Bezos use WaPo that way.
"It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president"
"For decades, the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else. Today, that conversation is counterproductive. A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles: to make their political parties more representative"
Here's a selection of headlines that counter the implication that the paper is there to help Bezos
"Worker-led win at Amazon warehouse could provide new labor playbook The unionization of a Staten Island facility at one of the country’s biggest employers shows how workers are emerging from pandemic with new tactics and energy" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/02/amazon-la...
"Amazon’s anti-union blitz stalks Alabama warehouse workers everywhere, even the bathroom" https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/02/amazon-...
"Jun 1, 2021 — A Washington Post analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Administration data shows Amazon's serious injury rates are nearly double those at higher rates than other firms" "https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-..."
Shareholders will beg to differ.
I can offer the board double of what Elon is offering them right now, and also say I will figure out the financing later in the year. Do you think the board would be derelict to turn down my offer?
As a stock owner? No.