Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban

Post by throwawaymanbot » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #163

lalos wrote: post #5

It is interesting how much influence Peter Thiel has on the main players of social media: via Facebook as an early investor and ex-board member and via Twitter with his ex-coworker from Paypal days Musk. He’s very explicit in his book about the power of monopolies and now you see this consolidation of social media companies under a specific group of closed people. WSJ reported Thiel being involved with Musk on this t…

You don't need any conspiracies theories to explain why Dorsey is a supporter of free speech. Dorsey has always been part of the crop of Enlightenment-liberal tech CEOs, which includes Larry, Sergey, and Zuckerberg. It got memory-holed pretty quickly, but these guys were dragged kicking and screaming into the new illiberal consensus that it was their job to decide what users are allowed to talk about. At a certain po…

Post by mywittyname » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #158

originalvichy wrote: post #87

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with bei…

"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe . Other than the fact that he got elected.

Post by whitepaint » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #167

whitepaint wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say that politicians have the right to stay on a private website? Yes, Twitter has the right to ban people. As do restaurants not serve certain people. But if a restaurant decides to not serve Jews let's say, I will obviously condemn them. If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter when they banned the president.

> if a restaurant decides to not serve Jews I will obviously condemn them. They'll have serious legal problems pretty quickly for doing something so illegal. > If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter when they banned the president. I believe in free speech and property rights. Which means if Twitter decides someone can't be on Twitter anymore due to their actions then that's their r…

Post by triceratops » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

whitepaint wrote: post #185

triceratops wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a restaurant decides to not serve Jews I will obviously condemn them. They'll have serious legal problems pretty quickly for doing something so illegal. > If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter when they banned the president. I believe in free speech and property rights. Which means if Twitter decides someone can't be on Twitter anymore due to their actions then that's their r…

Once again... Where did I say that Twitter doesn't have that right?

Post by gadders » Wed, May 11, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

notreallyserio wrote: post #179

gadders wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think to be fair-minded if "call to arms" is idiomatic, then you have to assume that "stand back, and stand by" is as well. You can't arbitrarily take one literally and one not. If they both idiomatic, then they are both equally harmless.

One of those phrases is told to groups of people that regularly worships guns in public. The other is not. Context counts for a lot.