←back to thread

707 points patd | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
djohnston ◴[] No.23322847[source]
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
nojito ◴[] No.23322950[source]
twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.
replies(4): >>23322989 #>>23323043 #>>23323182 #>>23323344 #
spinach[dead post] ◴[] No.23323344[source]
Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda.

I got into the gender debate recently (a big mistake), and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights. A man (Zuby) got suspended for simply saying 'dude' to someone. People get their accounts deleted for 'misgendering' people.

Twitter is already, hardly a bastion of free speech.

_fizz_buzz_ ◴[] No.23323726{3}[source]
> Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda.

Are you saying that if someone has a website, they shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for that site. Are you going to allow me to post whatever I want on your website?

replies(1): >>23323789 #
pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.23323789[source]
Not parent commenter, but ... Actually, I think certain sites are so prolific as to basically amount to public spaces and that we should have agreed principles by which they can[|not] moderate an individual's speech, because they effectively can have a real effect on a person's ability to "speak" in "public".
replies(2): >>23324174 #>>23325296 #
1. badRNG ◴[] No.23324174{5}[source]
Perhaps certain sites became prolific due in part to the moderation decisions they make for their platforms.

For instance, there are other sites that take a very different moderation strategy (4chan comes to mind.) If Twitter developed a moderation strategy like Voat or 4chan, likely people would leave for a company that utilized a different moderation style. Then you'd be wondering why there isn't "free speech" on that platform.

This gets to the root of the issue, the crux of the argument isn't whether one is entitled to have a public space to spread ideas, but whether one is entitled to a platform by which their ideas can be spread. A platform whose ubiquity is paradoxically dependent on that platform's ability to moderate what type of discourse is permitted.

replies(1): >>23327431 #
2. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.23327431[source]
I'm not advocating for the right to a platform.

The ability to control the "public" spaces gives one effective control over "speech". That's a lot of power.

Having that power entirely outside of democratic control troubles me.

replies(1): >>23327983 #
3. badRNG ◴[] No.23327983[source]
>The ability to control the "public" spaces gives one effective control over "speech".

Let's suppose, for instance, that Twitter is deemed large enough to be a "public forum" and no longer makes moderation decisions outside of removing illegal content. The clear, obvious consequence for such a decision would be that most people would cease to use Twitter. It would no longer be a "public space" because that "public" would no longer be there.

People would stop using Twitter for the same reason the public doesn't use 4chan. Anecdotally, I don't want to be harassed for my sexuality on Twitter. I wouldn't feel safe, or want to participate in a site that allows open attacks against people due to their gender identity, race, or religion. And let's not kid ourselves, the "conservative" view points being "censored" on Twitter aren't really "conservative" views at all, it's just hate speech, harassment, and attacks against marginalized people. Even semi-famous self-described fascist content creators continue to use Twitter above radar, provided they don't explicitly distribute hate speech on the platform.

Marginalized people of every form would find another place that is moderated to flock to. That would become the new "public place" that so-called "conservatives" would wish to invade.