notherthrowaway

==“[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.

==People gleefully discuss Sweden and almost openly hope that their lockdown-free plan fails.==

What I see is the opposite, lots of people who want to copy Sweden’s plan regardless of the toll it took on human life. Others want to put mask orders in place to protect more people.

Meanwhile, we have unmarked federal agents roaming cities, a President who fires Inspector Generals and ignores subpoenas without punishment, and a sitting Senator calling for “no quarter” for protestors. Those are all pretty authoritarian moves and they come straight from the top. If you think “everyday citizens” are the authoritarian threat, your risk analysis might be off.

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...

Take a look at the national defense budget or each city’s police budget if you think collective safety is below individual freedoms. We clearly put more resources towards collective safety than individual freedoms.

I’m not sure I follow. Can you provide examples of policy decisions that are individual and not collective?

Also, what “culture” are you referring to?

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.

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

==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...

I figured the rules applied to everyone when they sign the TOS.

Should the press secretary’s Twitter account get special treatment?

==And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.==

More than one thing can be dangerous to our society, like if these platforms were used to spread falsehoods and misinformation unchecked.

We have made murder illegal and there is a “murder for hire” black market. How does that refute my point?

== People just tend to behave better when they're dealing with a real human being that they've met instead of a screen name in Slack that they argue with every day.==

I’ve seen this work with unruly customers, too.

You could use the $90 million to diversify your real estate assets or pay down your debt.

Lobbying as “too big to fail” is an interesting argument, although your “black market” argument could be made for pretty much any law. On the other hand, we know that legislation and court decisions have a large impact because we’ve witnessed the results of McCain/Feingold and Citizens United. At the same time, we can observe how other democracies manage the same issue.

==That means that earnings were coming from somewhere, and if not from core consumer products, then presumably from other things that the stock-market-wealthy were buying from each other, at presumably inflating prices, or at least quantities.==

It isn’t a given that you need to increase earnings to increase your P/E ratio. The “E” is your Earning Per Share. Buying back shares lowers your denominator and magically increases EPS, which drives the price higher.

It's also possible that after the pandemic, when it's an option again, the youngest employees will prefer to work in offices. Won't the talent drive their choice ultimately?

==This general shift in attitude will make it far more realistic to work where you actually in your heart of hearts want to live.==

Will young people suddenly not want to live in close proximity to other young people? Will that become another luxury item for the well-connected?

I think people are asking the wrong questions. We know that people moving back in with their parents is up about 3 million due to COVID [1]. It would follow that studio apartments are the mostly likely to be rented by those same young people, thus the demand has dried up.

The question we aren't asking is, what happens when the economy recovers and these people move out of their parent's homes? Will they go back to the "destination" cities or will newer, smaller cities be the target? Will they crave experiences or space more?

[1] https://www.marketplace.org/2020/07/28/millions-of-americans...