←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.28s | 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. crimsoneer ◴[] No.23325296[source]
If that's the case, maybe the government should buy them out at market price and then it can do whatever it wants.