Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[Rocinante]

I think I'm too dumb to understand what this means beyond "right wing accounts got banned" lol

 

[gral]

I think I'm too dumb to understand what this means beyond "right wing accounts got banned" lol

Let-wing accounts that got banned also are by and large less influential than the right-wing ones.

 

[Rocinante]

Let-wing accounts that got banned also are by and large less influential than the right-wing ones.

So right and left wing accounts both bot banned but it's worse for the right before they banned more influencian accounts?

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[gral]

So right and left wing accounts both bot banned but it's worse for the right before they banned more influencian accounts?

Thank you for clarifying.

Yes. It also appears that, proportionally, more right-wing accounts were banned, although the difference doesn't seem to be that large.

You're welcome.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Are there no independent accounts on Twitter? I'd think that would be useful to compare here.

 

[Captain X]

"Independents" are probably all classified as right-wing on the grounds of them not being left-wing.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Trump will never be allowed back on Twitter, even when he wins the presidency in 2024.

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent, even if he runs in 2024

Former President Trump’s Twitter ban is permanent, even if he runs for president again in 2024, a top company official said Wednesday.During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Twitter…

thehill.com

 

[Cherico]

Trump will never be allowed back on Twitter, even when he wins the presidency in 2024.

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent, even if he runs in 2024

Former President Trump’s Twitter ban is permanent, even if he runs for president again in 2024, a top company official said Wednesday.During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Twitter…

thehill.com

I dont think twitter wants to remain a company much longer.

 

[Captain X]

That's okay - he can help drive people to a new platform that will take him if that's the case.

 

[Zachowon]

Trump will never be allowed back on Twitter, even when he wins the presidency in 2024.

Twitter says Trump ban is permanent, even if he runs in 2024

Former President Trump’s Twitter ban is permanent, even if he runs for president again in 2024, a top company official said Wednesday.During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Twitter…

thehill.com

That is illegal iirc

 

[Abhorsen]

That is illegal iirc

No, why would it be? It's a company that's permanently banned someone from doing business with it. That's not unusual.

 

[Zachowon]

No, why would it be? It's a company that's permanently banned someone from doing business with it. That's not unusual.

A social media platform banning a way for a presidential candidate to get information out

 

[Bear Ribs]

They banned him when he was still President in January. Evidently they can do it.

 

[Abhorsen]

A social media platform banning a way for a presidential candidate to get information out

There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.

 

[Doomsought]

On the other hand, saying that it should be illegal is another thing entirely. Twitter and big services like it should be common carriers.

 

[Terthna]

There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.

It isn't illegal, but it should be. The fact of the matter is that Twitter is a platform where the majority of people communicate; if you aren't on on Twitter, your ability to reach people is sorely hampered when compared to those who are. By selectively banning people from their platform, Twitter is controlling the public discourse to a significant degree. In short, due to their prominence, they have defacto power over freedom of speech.

 

[LordsFire]

There's nothing illegal about that though. Like, cite me the law or court ruling that says otherwise, or news report on it. I think you are getting it confused with political figures not being allowed to block constituents from their twitter if they use it to announce things as an office holder.

The same rule that barred politicians from blocking people on Twitter when they use the account to make statements, should unquestionable make it illegal for Twitter to ban him.

Frankly, Trump should have Twitter in court over this.

 

[Abhorsen]

On the other hand, saying that it should be illegal is another thing entirely. Twitter and big services like it should be common carriers.

You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).

The same rule that barred politicians from blocking people on Twitter when they use the account to make statements, should unquestionable make it illegal for Twitter to ban him.

Frankly, Trump should have Twitter in court over this.

No, it's very different. The rule about politicians not blocking people depends on them using their twitter account to do policy announcements, and people have a right to hear policy announcements. But the reverse, that companies are required to broadcast government policy announcements, doesn't apply. Honestly, that's getting too close to compelled speech for me to be happy with such a rule just for government people.

 

[LordsFire]

You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).

No, it's very different. The rule about politicians not blocking people depends on them using their twitter account to do policy announcements, and people have a right to hear policy announcements. But the reverse, that companies are required to broadcast government policy announcements, doesn't apply. Honestly, that's getting too close to compelled speech for me to be happy with such a rule just for government people.

On the contrary, FCC requirements for holding a broadcast license have long included things like CONELRAD and emergency storm warning systems.

I don't agree with the court ruling. I think it's perfectly fine for a politician to block someone on Twitter. But if the court is going to rule that's not allowed, then any degree of sanity requires that Twitter not be allowed to ban or bar a politician's account either.

In addition, they still claim to be a platform, not a publisher.

 

[Doomsought]

You don't seem to understand what being a common carrier entails. If they are a common carrier, they become obligated to not only host Trump, but also Pro nazi videos, KKK recruitment tweets, probably ISIS recruitment videos (though I doubt ISIS could sue them about it).

Yes, that is exactly what I want.