731–740 of 1001 posts
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
Sword rattling is pretty standard behavior for leaders everywhere throughout history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's amazing. Of all the horrific thing people post to Twitter all day long, a vague statement about Palestinian independence is the "best" whataboutist comparison Trump could find to match his own threat to open fire on the country he is sworn to defend.
How about this? https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1265440342892929025?...
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.
I don't have time to explain to someone for the umpteenth time how this is different, and even within the "well golly Twitter is a big company, maybe it's a public utility" argument, the president is a much more unique position and situation than the average user.
The President could talk about how he thinks we should execute our fellow citizens, or call our political rivals skanks, or tell us that Coronavirus will magically disappear by Easter, or that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure, all by standing up his own microblog platform and blast it from S3 or Azure. He could hold his press conferences and bullshit to the whole nation, or set up email distros... all things he has done or could do.
Please, for the love of society and sanity, stop throwing around 1984 references every time someone shuts someone else up. Read the goddamn book.
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms. For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network. CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly. Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their…
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
One can also check easily-discoverable recent US military policy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 to discover that those who think these things through don't condone "looting ⊃ shooting". Bonaparte was a fan of the "whiff of grape" https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_v... but we all know how that ended.
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.
Protests are fine. Mayhem and larceny, however, are not. Violence against lawbreakers is absolutely enshrined as acceptable, and that isn't going to change for the foreseeable future. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with Trump's tweet, certainly nothing overriding the First Amendment.
Further, Twitter is absolutely in the wrong to portray itself as passing some kind of absolute judgement on the President's views, and in fact that it is above the Presidency. It is NOT a neutral platform.
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
The 1st Amendment does not apply to private platforms, except perhaps if Twitter was denying access on protected attributes (race, gender, etc). Anyone can be sued for any reason. It is extremely unlikely a suit against Twitter for moderation will succeed. In theory they have the legal ability to remove all GOP politicians, knitters, or fast food companies from their platform. The newest Executive Order about Section…
"Freedom Watch's First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'" the court wrote, citing a previous opinion issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The judges went on to say that "'a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.'"