On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:01:34AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the fascist > > government they work for. > > > > > Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that > allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling > comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the userbase) the > only sane commercial decision is to remove the problematic speech, no? > > Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and > defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that it > sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those users anyway > > > > > What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend fascist > > corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course.... > > > > It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se. > > I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and > certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset. > > But you know what, I believe in individual rights, and that includes the > right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're being made to > carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world where people will > associate them with you, that's - in effect- compelling speech which is > just as bad (if not worse) than suppressing speech.
At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to have crossed the line into "service provider"? 100 million? More? Less? Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/ conduit? And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else? > Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for > expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly > harassing people for race, gender, whatever. So you say. This is Twitter we're talking about - where the only way you can be "attacked" (you should at least be saying 'verbally' attacked) is if you "follow" the person "attacking" you. > The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we > currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've > bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but > of their actions. So now "speech == actions". The Ministry of Truth congratulates you; take notice that the Ministry's cheques take up to 48 hours to arrive.
