191–200 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty confident that if a suitable case made it to the supreme court, social media like Twitter would be deemed a de facto public square under the US Constitution. Any case law to that effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
As a society we need to redefine what a public space is.
That's one of the reasons that we need a blockchain-based microblog platform to take off and become popular.
> "artificially" amplifying information Isn't that the whole point of Twitter?
It depends if Twitter's censors agree with the views expressed or not.
Lawsuits challenging a censorship action or account suspension relating to censorship should be granted an exception to the otherwise binding arbitration agreement.
The purpose of this would be to deter ad hoc political censorship, and to instead encourage these companies to move towards a more procedure driven censorship system in which they simply respond to court orders and leave everything else up. So, for example, if I sued the John Doe operating this account for copyright infringement or if a law enforcement agency won a court order to get the account taken down for posting illegal pornography, that's fine, that's how things are supposed to work.
If instead the service is just arbitrarily censoring people, they have to keep strict records of their work products and produce those records in discovery. The companies would also have a hard time deflecting responsibility onto individual censors because almost anything that they could possibly do would be within the scope of their employment.
Yes, this would make what most of these companies do with their censorship teams economically impractical. That's the point.
I am not sure if they are aware of the Fediverse [1,2]. The Fediverse essentially rebuilds all the social-networking services but as federated services. This means each service can be hosted by multiple instances and instances can communicate with one another, but all still have their internal rules. I think they even used the "-verse" term before the whole Metaverse-hype. They could move the tracker to a suitable Ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
If twitter is going to selectively censor their user base then they are liable for the content the users who remain create.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends if Twitter's censors agree with the views expressed or not.
There should be a federal law that requires that these moderation teams keep extensive records of their censorship work product in order to maintain their immunity. This censorship work product would then be have to be made available in discovery. Lawsuits challenging a censorship action or account suspension relating to censorship should be granted an exception to the otherwise binding arbitration agreement. The pur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> newspeak You guys keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Twitter is a private company. Newspeak was a language developed by the government in Orwell's 1984. VERY different contexts here. For the record - what Twitter communicated is not clear and potentially deceptive, but this response wasn't written by some Twitter PR person. Some support person pressed a button and a canned twitter respo…
Yes, and the Dutch East India Company was just a trading operation that had no long-term repercussions on the world. They're both transnationals (something that is an abomination against humanity, in my opinion). There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless: 1). You work there, and it aligns with your interests for your current employer to continue to operate and generate profit (likewise if you hold…
The substack username "patriotone" is pretty revealing. Reeks of QAnon nonsense, the posts themselves contain some pretty obvious dog whistles too.
There is a Substack associated with the suspended twitter account [0]. They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". [0] https://patriotone.substack.com [1] https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension
By that logic, Twitter should also be blocking @jack's account due to all the Bitcoin-pushing going on there too.
In fact, I think I'll go report it now...