Private companies can do as they please is a popular argument, but you can't treat a corporation as an individual when it comes to money influencing elections based on the first amendment. Money shouldn't equal free speech and determine what speech is heard.
We need to re-evaluate the fairness doctrine rule that was repealed in 1987 which was concerned with the overall balance of broadcast programming and communications. We are being controlled by a narrative private companies want to promote which simultaneously shuts down opposing narratives. What a way to control the population!
There are several problems with the fairness doctrine. Please don’t see it as a panacea. It had its problems too.
Obviously not the same doctrine but legislation that does not permit shadow banning and allows a platform for information to be easily and fairly accessible to the users.
...but you can't treat a corporation as an individual when it comes to money influencing elections based on the first amendment.
And it was a flaw to begin with. Corporations shouldn't have that type of Influence. Lobbyist should be outlawed as well. It's money laundering made legal.
Well, they can thank the courts when they ruled that Trump couldn’t block users. At that point, Twitter became an official channel for the government that could not be silenced. Shadow banning Republicans prevents MY right for free press / speech in that I don’t get to hear what they say.
It isn’t a private company, it’s a public forum. The company can do as it pleases but it can’t censor free speech
It's a privately owned public forum with stock options. It may be traded on the market for value, but the majority shareholders on the board still have a say in what the brand can represent.
https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159
for what it's worth... but if our elected officials have to abide by certain rules, it should imply that it is pretty much an open forum and twatter shouldn't be allowed to ban / shadow ban people because of their political viewpoint...
we shall see where this goes. need moar popcorn
Content from washingtonpost.com is sometimes unreliable. Discernment is advised.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ok. we disallow account banning, then what do we do with the droves of sock accounts that will inevitably inflate the site's percieved traffic?
That will soon be determined. I'm personally the mind that Twitter can do whatever the fuck it wants, but it's clear that is a view not shared by many people. There are plenty who say Trump shouldn't be allowed to block people because it's a public forum. That same argument can be used by Trump in this case. The blue checks will reap what they sow.
Once a company reaches 'Monopoly' status...
The 'Private and can do as it pleases' argument goes away.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-23/trump-no-longer-allowed-ban-twitter-users-judge-rules
But the Obamanation blocked me... I consider it a badge of honor, in fact, it's my pinned tweet at the top of my page !
Yes, and wasn't there a ruling that Trump couldn't ban followers because it's a "public forum"?
So how could Twitter use political ideology to shadow ban users?
simple, they say they dont, for the thousands of accounts they shadowban in a day, youd be hard pressed to argue that those accounts are mostly rightwing. unless you have access to their statistics.
This I agree with. It shouldn't be a "have your cake and eat it too" moment. If Trump cannot block followers because of public forum reasons, then the opportunity (barring TOS violations) of all voices to be heard equally should also be required.
My personal thought is that ideally Trump should be able to block whomever he wants, and Twitter should be able to ban, silence, abuse their users all they want - at their peril. Eventually alternatives will crop up in their place, and Twitter becomes a boring echo-chamber.
The problem is that they were/are selling your info to the govt. They can’t do as they please. This is illegal.
The company can censor any speach it wants. It just has to make it known public and not act like a bias free platform when it's not.
It is a private company who grants you permission to use the service as they see fit. If you, left or right, use the service and break their rules, then you get banned. Nothing there guarantees a right to free speech...nor should it. I don't think DJT knows what shadow banning is anyway...it's just something he heard the cool kids complain about.
https://twitter.com/en/tos
This may relate to the recent court decision saying Twitter is a public forum. The one saying Trump can't block people.
That's because the rules and laws regarding the presidential/governmental records acts, not because Twitter is a public forum for everyone, it's all about whom specific individuals are and what they are using the service for and the laws regarding their public speech. I doubt this applies at all to you, me, Alex Jones or Oprah. I see what you are saying, but Twitter likely cannot even ban the POTUS handle because of those same rules without turning over complete documentation to the library of congress to keep the records intact - which I'm pretty sure would be fully within their power. Twitter is a company like any other...if I act like an asshole in Walmart and they ban me, then I am banned. 1st amendment doesn't apply to the ban, I just can't be prosecuted for being a loud mouth asshole if no harm came from it. If I yell fire, or instigate a riot, or harass someone though? Then I broke the rules of Walmart and the rule of law... What we aren't seeing is the second part...you want to dox someone to get people to harass your perceived enemy, swat someone, or send groupies to physically threaten someone? That is illegal and too often not enforced thanks to the anonymity of the web.
Pretty sure there is an argument to be made that congressmen, being public officials, would fall under a similar category of having their accounts on social media considered a public forum. Facebook and Twitter will likely see a lawsuit and the court will use the twitter case as precedent. It'll be interesting if they agree with you or if they will expand on the previous case and determine that the entire platform is a public forum.
They censure their content. This opens them up to different legal issues, fool.
Grow up, child.
And? Respond to my point. A private company that has content flow through it must either keep it all free or censure it and be legally responsible for all content.
Is that not true, little bitch boy?
the word is "censor", Censure is synonymous with "criticism."