_dibly

>maintaining social integrity

>takes away a lot of freedoms

pick one?

>If a given platform has a monopoly over any subset of people, they have a monopoly.

Also, I have to stress that this is just wrong. You just said 'Twitter has a monopoly over the subset of Americans that use Twitter exclusively' but it _doesnt_. Those users can choose to access your content on Facebook, Reddit, email, or anywhere else _with no obstruction_.

Sure I guess, you keep telling me I'm not getting it and then misrepresenting what I'm saying so I'm just going to assume you either don't understand or are just having a conversation in bad faith.

I guess your argument is 'your audience is literally everyone and if someone refuses to use a service besides Twitter you should be legally obliged to reach that person even if Twitter wishes to remove your content from it's platform for violations of their content moderation policy', which is absolutely insane to me.

>You're saying that the company town doesn't deny you from speaking to anyone on the sidewalks of another town,

That isn't what I'm saying _at all_, so I guess we're done here.

>it's hundreds of towns worth of sidewalks.

Yeah you're really not getting this. I'm not trying to be rude but you seem to not be understanding what I mean at all.

>Twitter can evict you from an audience bigger than Texas with no other way to reach them, and your argument is that a monopoly on Texas is only 10% of the country.

That's not my argument at all, the argument is that if the private company had only owned 10% of the sidewalks in town, the court would have ruled that they had every right to tell her to distribute her materials elsewhere(it explicitly says this was the reasoning behind their decision). It was only because one private corporation literally had a monopoly on sidewalks in the town that the court saw differently.

>And you as a speaker can't use the Facebook sidewalks instead of Twitter unless they had all the same people walking on them

But they do have the same people walking on them...

>If you want to reach your entire audience, you have to use both at once.

This is a bit of a catch-22, no? Your 'entire audience' is everyone that you can reach. If Twitter objects to your content, they can bar you from their (relatively small, to point out the analogy again) share of 'sidewalks', but there are still a vast number of other sidewalks 'in town' that you can advertise on.

>Twitter can evict you from an audience bigger than Texas with no other way to reach them

Who are these people that Twitter denies access to the rest of the internet? You are perfectly capable of reaching anyone who uses Twitter through another social media service, or setting up your own website/newsletter/Discord channel/podcast/blog/etc.

That's not how that works. The point was that 10 in 10 Americans in that town had to follow the private company's restrictions because they controlled the entire town.

What you're saying has nothing to do with the analogy GP was making which was that the private company had a monopoly on sidewalks in the town, but Twitter doesn't control all of the sidewalks in town, it controls about 10% of them. And even if the aggregation of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Discord run about 90% of the sidewalks, those companies are all independent of each other and have their own business models and content moderation policies. Plus, new sidewalks are being built all the time. Discord and Reddit have grown in popularity vastly in more recent years, at what point do we add new companies into this tangled analogy, or take them out?

>People who get banned from one platform are frequently banned from others soon after, especially if notorious.

Can you give us a few examples?

>These companies also all have content policies prohibiting the same constitutionally-protected speech

As someone has already pointed out to you, the constitution protects you from the government, not from the moderation of a private company who you choose to publish your opinions on.

>Censorship doesn't have to be binary to be censorship: an environment in which your reach is reduced to practically nothing if you have one viewpoint and amplified into the stratosphere where you have the opposite viewpoint is an environment antithetical to the purpose of the first amendment, which is about creating an open and honest marketplace for ideas

You just described every cable news outlet in the United States. The idea that freedom of speech means 'requiring neutrality' is just painfully misinformed. You can talk about literally anything you want on the internet. But you're conflating a few social media platforms with vastly different moderation policies, user bases, and business models into one mass of 'public communication'.

>There's nothing wrong with requiring neutrality from social media companies.

I couldn't disagree more. Who will be the decider in what 'neutrality' means? Because that's about as loaded of a political term as you can get in this day and age. I don't understand what an even remotely reasonable interpretation of this policy would be where individual private companies were forced to publish or barred from removing content that goes against their content moderation policy.

Neither of those things are owned and moderated by a private company, and private companies definitely don't orient their product on the basis of neutrality.

The case you linked is about an entire town that was owned by one company, and that the ability to remove someone from your sidewalk for distributing materials doesn't apply in a traditional sense when one single private owner can essentially 'kick you out of town'.

Twitter is used by about 1 in 10 Americans and doesn't make decisions about who or what to restrict from it's platform based on Facebook's content moderation standards. IMO the idea that a handful of private companies with completely different business models and content moderation policies have a 'collective monopoly' on public communication is ridiculous.

What if a large platform has strict posting rights to cultivate a specific community standard that has nothing to do with the law? If my power-washing forum gets to over 10m users I'm now legally obligated to publish everything that doesn't violate US law, regardless of my site's content moderation policy?

What about large platforms based in other countries with a strong user base in the US, or vice versa? Do you force tech companies based internationally to comply with US law for content moderation purposes globally, or just for US residents? If not, what's to stop Facebook from moving their offices to Canada and continuing their business model as-is?

I fail to see how this is an even remotely reasonable assertion.

The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their platform, that would be totally okay with you?

Yeah, I don't know anyone like that and I am skeptical that a significant amount of people exist who do. This article is pretty lacking in substance. I certainly know people who strongly prefer iOS personally and frequently remind everyone of said preferences, but you could say that about video game consoles.

I know multiple people who refuse to communicate unless it's on an app like Signal or Telegram, but I don't know anyone over the age of 17 who cares that my bubbles are green instead of blue. And even if I did happen to know people like that, I still don't see "well some people will find literally any excuse to be exclusionary" as a good argument for iMessage locking users into their ecosystem.

Is there anything you wanted to contribute, or were you just fishing for upvotes here? There are about a million different ways to make any of the points you made that would actually merit a response, but you really took the ball and ran with it.

Do you think anyone is going to read your snarky response to someone who was making a reasonable point and think "this seems like someone who wants to have a conversation"?

I've been using an Android for my entire life And I've never felt the need to switch because my friends use iMessage, despite almost all of my friends and family using iPhones (which I recommend to them, because most of them aren't very tech savvy).

Honestly, I don't even know how that would be an argument for locking you into an ecosystem. It's not like text messages are an ancient technology that modern iPhones will not support.

Sorry, I don't see any value in engaging with someone who's going to be intentionally obtuse about the semantics of hate speech to justify their regressive and objectively disgusting opinions.

Oh I agree with you, I was referring to the person you were replying to. The idea that a private company making decisions about users on their platform is censorship is ridiculous to begin with. 1 in 10 Americans use Twitter, to say that Twitter is even capable of censoring the president, even if had they would disable his account permanently, would be laughable.

Hate speech is absolutely not subjective. And further, the counterexamples you gave don't really support your argument.

There's no moral high ground to claim when the opposition has repeatedly said things disparaging minorities and more recently repeatedly posted false information with the express purpose of inciting a reaction from your their supporters.

I'm not a straight white male so when/if the pendulum ever swings back in favor of evangelical christian 'morality' I would expect the exact same amount of favors I have always been afforded. I'm sure you could go on, but I don't think you have much of a point.

I'm all for nuance, but I can't imagine this being the hill people want to die on RE: censorship. As long as the calls for violence aren't overt we're cool with them? I might be in the minority but I don't have a problem lumping plain old hate speech in with inciting violence. I'm trying to imagine the best possible take on what Trump is trying to do by tweeting incendiary misinformation and I just can't get there.

Well I must say, after coming back to check the thread later on I've learned a lot about HP's awful business practices. Based on the article (and the fact that I've had the same HP printer for over a decade now) I had no idea that they were using DRM in their ink cartridges. I guess when I finally update my printer I'll be switching to a different brand.

Calling out partisans for hypocrisy is commendable, using a weak false equivalence to do it when there isn't any basis for it makes you look mad.

I don't think the comparison to digital streaming services holds up, there are plenty of subscription services that send you products and it's pretty silly to say that you don't own products that are being sent to you. It's not like HP can revoke a digital license to all of the ink I've already received. The issue here has nothing to do with subscription services themselves and everything to do with HP arbitrarily changing the terms of a deal to mandate a subscription service.

Yeah there are a crazy amount of comments here that can be summed up as 'we make the product so we are above office politics' and attitudes like that are a huge part of the problem.

Apple is the one looking to expand into health and wellness. The data Apple can harvest is going to become more and more valuable. They're rolling out home speakers and the Apple Watch is increasingly becoming a DYI diagnostic tool. I think it's a bit naive to think that Apple is somehow more altruistic than any other big tech company.

Nothing very interesting but there's 3 replies I can see, you have to click on the body of the tweet to expand the replies, whereas clicking on the comments button starts your own reply.

Yeah, Twitter is terrible.

I'm in community college, but my experience in high school was basically identical to yours. High school and the beginning of college were a nightmare for me for essentially the same reasons you describe. I still feel like I'm shaking off some kind of imposter syndrome when I'm interviewing for a new client. Students used to seethe when my test scores were read because, despite testing top of the class I never did any extracurricular work or engaged in class very much. Eventually even the teachers started to treat me like a burnout. I'd start a new semester and the teacher would already know who I was from chatting in the teachers' lounge. At least in community college the student/faculty pool is wide enough that I can avoid those types of interactions, plus the switch to computer science and some decent ADHD meds have made all the difference.

I often wonder what kind of impulse drives someone to think, believe, and then confront others with their insanely regressive opinions. At least today I have a concrete answer.

In case you're still confused, there's this thing called the DSM that people use to diagnose/classify mental disorders. It's a pretty big deal.

>One of the downsides of aggressive ADHD medication treatment is that it can handicap learning of good habits and coping strategies

I mean, my entire post was actually saying the opposite. One of the biggest downsides of having ADHD is the way it handicaps learning of good habits and life skills. I tried doing exactly what you describe in high school and the result was constantly failing to do extracurricular work and being branded as lazy by my peers and educators. There are a lot of comments in this thread on both sides of the argument that seem to take personal anecdote too far. My honest advice continues to be that medication is a great tool for those who need it, and therapy is something pretty much everyone should experience.

I mean comments like this are the reason there's such a stigma against medication. It's kind of ignorant to say that "psychiatry is broken", "my meds ruined my life", or "I made it through school without them so I never needed them" as if none of those things had anything to do with you.

Someone in the same situation might feel much the opposite, but they also shouldn't use their experience to convince people that their attempt at treating a condition they have is inherently a bad choice.

This is absolutely something you should be working with a psychiatrist to regulate and find the dosage that works best for you. I don't take any medication for anxiety/depression but I regularly smoke pot and that does wonders for my anxiety. Of course, for some people pot can have the opposite effect which is why using it to self-medicate is a risky proposition.

Honestly my best advice is that, if you aren't having a good experience with your psychologist/psychiatrist you should find a better one. I've been lucky enough to be with a therapist who worked well for me as a teenager that I recently started seeing again for my anxiety. He recommends me to a local outpatient psychiatry department for my ADHD meds so I don't have to switch, but I don't know how much use the meds would be if I wasn't able to talk to him regularly.

I'm not a parent, so I don't really have any grounds to argue how someone should raise their children. The only anecdote I'll add is that I would be reluctant to hold someone back from an opportunity to have the normalcy that I couldn't have in school. When I got to high school it was like my ADHD kicked into full gear, I started performing significantly worse and outright failing classes. My classmates, friends, and even teachers treated me like a lazy burnout.

Out of 120 students, I was the only one who didn't graduate that year. Sometimes I feel like I have the world's worst case of impostor syndrome because of how high school went for me. I was constantly testing top of the class but most everyone looked at me like an abject failure. I went into college with practically zero note-taking or studying skills and the first couple of years were a nightmare, even with medication.

All this is to say that medication can help when you need to feel normal, but it can't replace the skills you should have been developing. Some people can develop those skills and get shit done without medication and I applaud them, but I tried that route and ended up _years_ behind my peers.

I take 30-MG Adderall XRs, my brothers both take IR before classes since they have more downtime, but I work from home so most days I wake up and work until 4-5PM at my desk. Also worth mentioning that we all take the doctor recommended dosages, I worked my way up from 10MG doses and I absolutely do not recommend self-medicating in any way.