Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sebzim4500 1019 days ago
I think it would be more logically incoherent if a group of people magically lost their rights because they got together to make a company.
1 comments

It's a voluntary arrangement that they can leave. Certain activities come with responsibilities and restrictions, *in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.
No our constitutional rights are not predicated on our actions or speech having no impact on society. On the contrary our rights are so that we may impact society as we see fit.

This is such a dangerous line of thought I almost don’t believe it.

Users original comment mentioned impact on society.

- You give up your first amendment rights when you sign non-disclosure agreements.

- You give up your second amendment rights when you enter a school or hospital.

- You give up privacy rights when you go through security screenings.

- You give up rights to a law suit when you sign a liability release at a climbing gym.

This is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration.

User also modified his original comment from “impact on society” to nothing to “in the interest of others rights”. Also all word for word with the current blitz on constitutional rights.

Interesting

> This is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration.

I was interested and tried to google that word for word, only thing that showed up was this thread. So it isn't word for word the same.

Should power companies be allowed to disconnect power (i.e. moderate) to entities that disagree with their ideals?

I'm not necessarily arguing X/Twitter is in the same league as a power company but this line of thought has many precedents.

Yes you are right it does. Namely the twitter files! Having this argument after all of the revelations in the twitter files is down right hilarious.
Twitter Files mostly demonstrated a big tech company doing big tech company moderation. It wasn't the bombshell people make it out to be.
The twitter files showed that factions in the government were directly requesting individual posts be removed from a private platform.

This is highly revelational and currently being litigated with the most recent decision that it was in fact unconstitutional.