[rhyme-boss]

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.

[whatwhaaaaat]

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.

[rhyme-boss]

- 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.

[whatwhaaaaat]

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

[Jensson]

> 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.

[Caligatio]

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.

[whatwhaaaaat]

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.

[shadowgovt]

Twitter Files mostly demonstrated a big tech company doing big tech company moderation. It wasn't the bombshell people make it out to be.

[whatwhaaaaat]

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.

[shadowgovt]

> This is highly revelational

I guess to anyone who hadn't had experience with moderating a popular social media platform or talked to anyone who has. Was that really so shocking?

> it was in fact unconstitutional

Nice of the government to step up to the plate and give those of us who've been on the corporate side of this some guidance, for once. Most of what companies get from Congress and the Court is radio silence on the topic (ironically, I suspect, so the government isn't credibly accused of violating a corporation's First Amendment rights by telling them how they can and cannot moderate). So it's nice for the courts to step up and tell companies that the thing the executive said they had to do, no, they don't have to do; that'll be helpful moving forward.

[Caligatio]

> the most recent decision that it was in fact unconstitutional.

This is not really what the decision states. The government can request all it wants but it cannot partake in "threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech".

I'm personally OK with the government requesting things to be moderated; I'm not OK with the aforementioned methods if the request isn't backed by law.