[zachware]

I'm definitely not one closed off to this story, I think it's important. That said I think "we" tend to forget that platforms like Twitter are private companies, we don't really have a "right" to post anything to them.

Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play.

If we're not happy about the moderation we don't have to use the moderating platform.

[kodah]

The problem here is something new, as Matt points out.

Law enforcement, tech companies, and the news media are operating under on some type of cooperating agreement which is not transparent to users or the creators of content. In normal human society you know the binds that bond, this is a reasonable expectation, and an expectation that even been challenged in the law. As the law infinitely expands, who am I (as a commoner) to know what I did wrong? Do I have the opportunity to change? Do I have the opportunity to face my accusers in a forum?

Our rights, and the framework they reside in, are far too outdated for this sort of problem. The leaders we have in both business and government are too cowardly, weak, or self-interested to directly address the McCarthy-esque patterns that are beginning to emerge that seem to be opportunistically aligned to further narratives.

[hackyhacky]

If your point is that the originators of the Biden story are shocked and confused that it's being suppressed in an opaque tech cooperating agreement, they shouldn't be: the story is being suppressed because it's at best illegally obtained data, and at worst deliberately falsified; and in either case, it's now being used by bad actors in an attempt to manipulate the results of the election. There's no mystery here: Twitter is being very clear about why this story is blocked.

[kodah]

As Matt stated, and really the whole point of the article, the Biden story doesn't matter. Forget about charging Biden with any wrong-doing for a moment and see what this relationship and mechanism between law enforcement, tech companies, and media entities is for its merits: The same mechanism that autocratic governments use for control and operated in the name of "the public good".

[joshuamorton]

I don't follow, are you suggesting that Tech companies and the media, in acting directly in opposition to the sitting president, are somehow forming an autocracy? Does that word continue to have a meaning?

[bassman9000]

There's a severe double standard here given that Twitter has allowed worse than that, which was the whole point of the article: that the decision making is opaque, arbitrary, and probably coordinated.

[Thorrez]

> we don't really have a "right" to post anything to them.

The article never talks about rights. The article is about journalistic failures.

[zests]

I do not think anyone is confused about whether or not the bill of rights applies to private companies. Free speech is an idea that can be extended to all types of speech.

[floatingatoll]

Comments exist on many prior HN discussions of Twitter and Facebook that demonstrate confusion around whether the bill of rights applies to private companies or not.

[Clubber]

>Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play.

Congress is currently grilling tech CEOs as to why they aren't banning / censoring QAnon and similar information. It seems Congress has moved to attempt to censor free speech by applying pressure on these private platforms to censor free speech.

>That issue about the functioning of democracy is one where Facebook is in the spotlight right now as a hugely powerful platform for misinformation in the run-up to the US election.

>This week the social media giant moved to shut down groups spreading the Qanon conspiracy theory, which promotes the idea that President Trump is leading a battle against satanic child abuse.

>It was the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee who wanted a really tough approach - a minority report from the Republicans agreed there was a problem, but favoured milder solutions.

Congress is grilling tech companies as to why they aren't censoring speech hard enough and are threatening a "really tough approach" if they don't comply. It seems censoring speech is not only government pressured now, but also bipartisan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54479130

[chroem-]

> Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play.

That may be the latest popular interpretation of the bill of rights, but it is absolutely not in the original spirit of its authors. They were defined as "inalienable rights" granted to all people. In other words, your essential human rights to free expression don't get waived depending on who the offending party is.

[jakelazaroff]

There is no “offending party”. Freedom of speech means speech cannot be compulsory. What would be contrary to the “original spirit” would be forcing Twitter and Facebook to amplify speech they don’t want to.

[chroem-]

Your implication is that Twitter and Facebook are human beings, and I think a majority of people would contest that idea.

What I am saying is that the authors of the bill of rights did not intend for a person's human rights to go away the moment they are persecuted by an entity other than the United States federal government.

[jakelazaroff]

The New York Post is also not a human being, for that matter. But I wasn’t implying that.

People want to use Twitter’s property to spread a message, and Twitter said no. That’s not “persecution”, it just means they have to find some other way to do it. If I get kicked out of a bar because I say something the owners don’t like, I’m not being persecuted — even if I think it’s unfair.

[zajio1am]

> If I get kicked out of a bar because I say something the owners don’t like, I’m not being persecuted — even if I think it’s unfair.

In some countries that would be violation of consumer protection laws. If some service or product is offered to a general public, than arbitrary exclusion of a consumer is illegal in some jurisdictions.

[chroem-]

We already have a significant amount of legal precedent to compel a private business to serve certain groups. Those protected groups were legally enshrined in the first place to extend them the same rights that everyone else already enjoyed by common custom, not to create a new group of people with elevated privileges. In my opinion, it's time that we now legally enshrine the common custom of a right to service as well.

[jakelazaroff]

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. What group has elevated privileges, and what group is being discriminated against that needs protecting?