[leanstartupnoob]

Which government agency is censoring Twitter?

Conservatives and libertarians LOVE to bleat about property rights, but they can't handle it when private parties won't provide free advertising for right-wing conspiracies.

[int_19h]

Private censorship is still censorship, and when large monopolies or cartels dominate the market, it can be just as damaging.

[lawnchair_larry]

You’ve learned how to do a straw man. Next, try your hand at the steel man. Feel free to look it up!

[artursapek]

I'm not aware of any govt agency censoring Twitter - only conservatives complaining that Twitter is censoring their tweets.

[lliamander]

What we LOVE is a market free of force and fraud, and we love rule of law. Within that there are very nuanced conversations to be had about when the threshold for force or fraud has been reached.

Enforcement of contracts is essential to a healthy society, but is it good to enforce a contract where one party either lied or coerced the other to sign? No, or at least not necessarily.

The nature of the contract between social media platforms and their users (both explicit and implicit) has changed dramatically since the days that Twitter was "the free speech wing of the free speech party". Users have sacrificed a increasing amount of privacy for less and less obvious benefit. In the meantime, many people have come to depend upon these services for connecting with others, for their livelihoods, and for news independent of corporate media.

Have the social media companies deceived their users? Or have they forced unconscionable terms upon their users? Have they violated consumer protection laws?

I am not a lawyer. I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do know that there are some lawyers and judges who do think that some of these social media companies have overstepped. We don't necessarily need a civil rights case, or a constitutional amendment, or even to repeal Section 230. All I think is necessary is for existing contract and consumer protection laws be litigated and enforced.

This kind of action would benefit both left and right, and I think is more constructive than opportunistically deciding that "businesses can do whatever they want" when you think it only hurts people on the right.

[leanstartupnoob]

Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets.

Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.

[lliamander]

I honestly think you should stop trying to read minds. You aren't very good at it.

Perhaps you should try reading my words instead and responding to them rather than the imaginary things you pretend I actually think? It might work out better.

[leanstartupnoob]

> All I think is necessary is for existing contract and consumer protection laws be litigated and enforced.

Ergo, what you really want is government to enforce your version of free speech through "existing" contract law.

[lliamander]

Can you please tell me what "my version" of free speech is? Is this different from the normal understanding of free speech? Because I haven't actually said anything about "free speech" other than quoting Jack Dorsey.

While I do believe in the necessity of freedom of speech (not just the first amendment, but a particular set of cultural values) those abstract values aren't my primary concern here. My concerns (across the various tech platforms out there) are:

* the disruption to peoples' businesses that result from the opaque and largely incontestable content moderation process. This is mainly a concern where the content in question does not violate either the law nor the TOS.

* The exploitation of consumers through the gradual degradation of privacy.

* The attempts to undermine consumer rights by removing users' options for legal remedy in the TOS

Basically, if users' are providing value to these platforms through advertising revenue, mine-able private information, transaction fees, etc. what expectations can the users' have with regard to the value they receive and how they are treated by the platforms? I do not think the answer of "nothing" is acceptable.