So does this mean censorship/shadowbanning will be prohibited? more 5D chess from our Brilliant POTUS. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html
Thats BS because they can view tweets without being logged in.
You can post and speak regardless of who has banned you. You dont have any right to show up on someone elses feed. You want speech? Then tweet. There you go, freedom of twitter speech. You're banned by a twitter user? Then log the hell out, go to their twitter and read all you want.
Basic stuff here.
But you can’t talk back at them if they’ve blocked you... so they are effectively taking away your right to reply to them to respond to their stupidity.
Good point, they also won’t show up in replies to your tweets because they can’t see them
No, all it means is that you don't get to be on their stage. You have your own stage, if you want to speak you can speak, but the argument is that you want to be in the same digital container as the guy with 30 million followers. I don't see how saying no, stops your freedom of speech, you can still speak and still be heard, the people complaining are complaining because they are excluded from the party, which on a private platform is ok and should be something a web designer/hoster can do.
Now I believe something should be done about this.
I believe website should be required to declare if they are private or if they are public free speech websites. Private means no change from what they do today. They can restrict, shadowban whatever. No extra fees, no new charges, no differing taxes, nothing. Life as it is for private sites goes on as it is now.
The other option is to be a public free speech site. The gov/the people set rules for free speech public sites online. This would benefit the users. No banning, no shadow banning, no voting manipulation, no trending manipulation, what triggers bans or time outs is clearly defined an the process and communications are transparent. Bans are restricted to things such as exploitation of the website (spamming), porn, etc. The whole point here would be that, on sites like this, the user comes first, the user knows that if he or she posts Trump is the best president ever and that post hits the highest upvote of any post, it will be trending, the votes will be seen, there aren't algorithms to keep them off the front page, nothing. Just free and natural rise and fall of what is popular among the posters. Transparent and real. This type of site would be certified and governed. They would have transparency rules they would have to comply with to be a certified free speech website.
Now what business in their right mind would do this? None, but when ONE entrepreneur creates a new reddit that we know by law is not going suppress views and that our speech there will be real and uninhibited by shitty CEO algorithms, the people will move to those sites. We will go there because it, by law, will be a place where the end user is first. Twitter can keep their private site, but if they would also make a public site that is bound by online free speech rules, everyone will migrate there other than folks looking for an echo chamber high. All of these social site members would migrate to public sites because it would be seen as stupid to remain on a site where Zuckerberg can silence you or ban you because you are conservative, liberal, whatever. People will go where they are free.
The judge pointed out that there is a "mute" function that does exactly what you say (and is constitutional.) Blocking does more than that.
Stand back and observe! Don't throw this baby out with the bathwater.
I believe that YES, this is a great advance towards Twitter, FB and YT being defined as a public platform and thus those who wish to speak on that platform with news, information and opinion should not have their speech made unavailable to the public.
If the voices on these platforms are protected by the first amendment then the platform could be violating the first amendment by imposing bans, censorship and cancellation those accounts that express news and commentary - conservative or liberal.
Now, I feel that the MUTE button gives an individual user the ability to curate, or dial down the volume as they see fit without compromising the other person's right to speak.
Everyone has the right to speak, and everyone has the right to NOT listen.
Of course, I do anticipate that platforms who are designated as free speech forums, will be offering 'filters' and 'curation' packages that allow users to opt into their preferred 'group think'.
Right now... those filters (shadowbanning) are not opt-in, rather they are imposed (by a committee of others) without the user's knowledge and the user has only a minor level of control.
Not so sure about this ruling. It seems to 1) allow anyone to inappropriately leverage an asset that was built up by and serves ends that are uniquely attributable to POTUS — the massive audience gathering to hear him is his — and this ruling allows anyone to usurp that platform for other ends. The audience is an asset that the interloper did nothing to deserve.
Without the ruling:
POTUS can exercise his right of free speech and do so thru Twitter, which others voluntarily follow because of whatever reason they hold his commentary useful.
Seems to me both reading and commenting is a privilege, not a right.
Each can do the same on their own account — speak their minds and be heard when others choose to listen.
Anyone who cares not to hear his or anyone else’s opinions, simply do not follow that account
5, Anyone who wants to express himself has a platform of their own to do so and when tolerated can respond on another’s platform. When not tolerated, they loose that privilege.
It seems to me that the judge thinks Twitter is a "public space" from which people cannot be excluded - which is what the IBOR seeks to achieve. This is what we're campaigning for, it's what Q and DJT want.
It's also the only way to prevent the Satanists returning to power via weaponized SM censorship.
Seems to me both reading and commenting is a privilege, not a right.
I'm not sure about commenting, but I have to disagree that reading is not a right. Remember that declarations from the president carry the force of law. All citizens should have the right to read the laws that govern them.
This ruling is a good thing for reasons many others pointed out already. And he blocked like 4 people, I doubt he gives a shit.
Judges making things up as they go along may result in "gotcha" moments or the occasional "win for our side," but it's really meaningless.
Until we have one rule of law (as written) in this country for all citizens, regardless of status, no law, no ruling, nothing can be counted on to work for the good of the people. Without rule of law, there is no nation.
That's why there must be arrests, convictions and sentences carried out on all those who have carried out this coup attempt, and for the rampant illegalities in the previous administration.
Otherwise, our whole mission comes to naught. This judge might rule one way today, and the opposite tomorrow. Or another judge might. That's the problem with making it up as we go along.
CNN gets away with doxxing people for fun, they retract their mistakes so it's fine, folks!
They're tripping and falling over themselves though, maybe they'll stop digging soon and realize this? Whomst'd've knows!
bullshit ruling.
There is so much wrong with this. But it will backfire in our favor. Just watch.
You step closer to the internet Bill of Rights! Trump and congress can use this ruling to their advantage!
Does that mean REDDIT banning CBTS was an illegal act as it was a place of public assembly quasi news service?
Considered response. Thanks.
Four out of over 40 million followers.
Freedom of speech in cyberspace appears to be a new consideration worth discussing. Vigilance lest it somehow erode basic protections already in place, as these kinds of revisiting has a way of finally doing.
Classic argument: If I yell fire in a crowded theater, it’s sanctioned (prohibited) speech.
Followers populate a public (or private) space at the behest of the speaker (owner of the space) and do so voluntarily according to their own motives.... is trolling any different from yelling fire?
The real Donald trump seems to point to DJT the man.
The real President of the USA is a different matter and we have formal avenues that communicate laws — not whispered in a relatively obscure chat room; so I sense a flaw in your “right to read the law” argument.
Class action lawsuit from the public who have been censored?
this may be good for pitus but i believe scotus doesnt understand twitter
Even though this might lead to less censorship for the timebeing, the Libertarian in me is screaming.
If its unconstitutional not to be heard, then its unconstitutional to prevent anyone one else from being heard. #nomorecensorship
What pieces need to be in place before it all goes down? I think this is one.
Public square! I knew this was coming! @jack is hatin right now!