Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by Nursie on Monday March 15, 2021 @11:05AM
(#26466859)
> Why? Because you believe corporations are people?
No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc.
> By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech.
Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at?
> Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter.
Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite.
I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.
No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc.
> By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech.
Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at?
> Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter.
Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite.
I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.