...has done so according to my design. Bwahahahahahahaha!
5
Average: 5(1 vote)
Comments
danmanjones (Old Spike)
You can create a new Twitter account. It takes 2 minutes. The underlying argument is that people have a right to have the influence (followers) that the platform allows them to build. LOL yeah right...point to that line in the constitution.
For a self-proclaimed libertarian, Tim isn't following a very libertarian line on this issue.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Maxpower (Old Spike)
There was some bullshit comment here, because I jumped the gun. Sorry, homie.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Not sure what you mean... I did write a big rant but edited it down.
I've just learned that some people get banned by IP so as soon as they create a new account & log into it on the same IP, Twitter bans the new account. There are several ways around this, the most fail-proof would be to use Tor. Still though, it kind of cancels out what I said when Twitter actively tries to block individuals from their platform even after they try to start over. I doubt I'll ever agree with regulation, it would be out of the frying pan into the fire.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
he doesn't claim he's a libertarian, but anyway on your point, what's not libertarian about that? libertarians famous want the constitution upheld and that's all. free speech is of course a constitutional right, and since the kind of speech or the forum isn't defined, then any and all public speech must be free, hence CB radio and public broadcast stations.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
he doesn't claim he's a libertarian
My bad, I had him confused with Rogan who says he's a left-leaning libertarian.
The problem with the US government regulating Twitter to enforce freedom of speech is that it's a global platform & it's a private company.
It's not a public forum in a legal sense. It takes place on Twitter's servers & they have a right to determine any set of rules they want (within the law), just as we have the right to decide not to use it. It would be extremely messy, if not impossible to have the government step in & enforce constitutional rights for users of a multinational private enterprise with a global userbase.
People think of Twitter as a community noticeboard. It appears that way but IMO, in legal terms, it's more like a newspaper & Twitter is the publisher. You have no constitutional rights to have an account on Twitter. Your account is based on a contract between you and them.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
it's a private company yes, but it's open to the public. twitter fundamentally unlike a newspaper in three ways - they don't control the content creators (they have no staff writers nor editors), they don't control viewship or circulation (newspapers only get delivered to paid subscribers), and they are not under any regulatory control.
it may not appear to be a public forum because the platform is owned by a private company, but they themselves have made it a public forum (including in a legal sense) by making it available to anybody and everybody. newspaper content is selected, but twitter runs on the reverse principle, and thus if deletes some accounts but not others then it's discriminatory.
you have no constitutional rights to a twitter account, but you do have a constitutional right to be able to speak on public forum, and that's what twitter have created and that's what they define their platform as. if they made it private and you had to subscribe to be able to use the service that'd be different, but then they would have to come under regulatory control just like newspapers and tv stations, and there'd have to also be a public version just like we have the abc and community newspapers.
twitter is deliberately keeping themselves public to avoid regulation and competition.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
they themselves have made it a public forum (including in a legal sense)
Yeah its a public forum but it's owned & controlled by a private company. Legally it's a private enterprise. Public would mean the government controls it. I think you're confusing 'public company' (company with shares on the stock market) with 'public ownership' (property with 51%+ ownership by the government).
Think of it this way, a bar is open to the public. If you don't have the right shoes on the bouncer may tell you to fuck off. Is it discrimination? maybe. Is it legal? most definitely.
If you were turned away because of race or sexual orientation then you could take it up with the law because there are specific laws written to protect people from that form of discrimination.
If you want a Twitter that the government controls then you need to start from scratch and build an alternative from a government department with tax payer funding, or get the government to invest in the existing Twitter.
What is PUBLIC OWNERSHIP?
The governement owns at least 51% or controlling share of the company. It is known as nationalisation when it is completely owned by the general public.
[the Supreme Court's justices'] comments indicate a majority might be open to expanding the definition of what constitutes a public forum where people are free to speak their minds.
Comments
(Old Spike)
You can create a new Twitter account. It takes 2 minutes. The underlying argument is that people have a right to have the influence (followers) that the platform allows them to build. LOL yeah right...point to that line in the constitution.
For a self-proclaimed libertarian, Tim isn't following a very libertarian line on this issue.
(Old Spike)
There was some bullshit comment here, because I jumped the gun. Sorry, homie.
(Old Spike)
Not sure what you mean... I did write a big rant but edited it down.
I've just learned that some people get banned by IP so as soon as they create a new account & log into it on the same IP, Twitter bans the new account. There are several ways around this, the most fail-proof would be to use Tor. Still though, it kind of cancels out what I said when Twitter actively tries to block individuals from their platform even after they try to start over. I doubt I'll ever agree with regulation, it would be out of the frying pan into the fire.
(Old Spike)
he doesn't claim he's a libertarian, but anyway on your point, what's not libertarian about that? libertarians famous want the constitution upheld and that's all. free speech is of course a constitutional right, and since the kind of speech or the forum isn't defined, then any and all public speech must be free, hence CB radio and public broadcast stations.
(Old Spike)
he doesn't claim he's a libertarian
My bad, I had him confused with Rogan who says he's a left-leaning libertarian.
The problem with the US government regulating Twitter to enforce freedom of speech is that it's a global platform & it's a private company.
It's not a public forum in a legal sense. It takes place on Twitter's servers & they have a right to determine any set of rules they want (within the law), just as we have the right to decide not to use it. It would be extremely messy, if not impossible to have the government step in & enforce constitutional rights for users of a multinational private enterprise with a global userbase.
People think of Twitter as a community noticeboard. It appears that way but IMO, in legal terms, it's more like a newspaper & Twitter is the publisher. You have no constitutional rights to have an account on Twitter. Your account is based on a contract between you and them.
(Old Spike)
it's a private company yes, but it's open to the public. twitter fundamentally unlike a newspaper in three ways - they don't control the content creators (they have no staff writers nor editors), they don't control viewship or circulation (newspapers only get delivered to paid subscribers), and they are not under any regulatory control.
it may not appear to be a public forum because the platform is owned by a private company, but they themselves have made it a public forum (including in a legal sense) by making it available to anybody and everybody. newspaper content is selected, but twitter runs on the reverse principle, and thus if deletes some accounts but not others then it's discriminatory.
you have no constitutional rights to a twitter account, but you do have a constitutional right to be able to speak on public forum, and that's what twitter have created and that's what they define their platform as. if they made it private and you had to subscribe to be able to use the service that'd be different, but then they would have to come under regulatory control just like newspapers and tv stations, and there'd have to also be a public version just like we have the abc and community newspapers.
twitter is deliberately keeping themselves public to avoid regulation and competition.
(Old Spike)
they themselves have made it a public forum (including in a legal sense)
Yeah its a public forum but it's owned & controlled by a private company. Legally it's a private enterprise. Public would mean the government controls it. I think you're confusing 'public company' (company with shares on the stock market) with 'public ownership' (property with 51%+ ownership by the government).
Think of it this way, a bar is open to the public. If you don't have the right shoes on the bouncer may tell you to fuck off. Is it discrimination? maybe. Is it legal? most definitely.
If you were turned away because of race or sexual orientation then you could take it up with the law because there are specific laws written to protect people from that form of discrimination.
If you want a Twitter that the government controls then you need to start from scratch and build an alternative from a government department with tax payer funding, or get the government to invest in the existing Twitter.
What is PUBLIC OWNERSHIP?
The governement owns at least 51% or controlling share of the company. It is known as nationalisation when it is completely owned by the general public.
https://thelawdictionary.org/public-ownership/
Related: http://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159
(Old Spike)
Found this:
[the Supreme Court's justices'] comments indicate a majority might be open to expanding the definition of what constitutes a public forum where people are free to speak their minds.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitters-censorship-may-be-unconstitutional