> One who passed 6th grade civics might also understand that the concept of “censorship” does not exclusively refer to US Government violations of the 1st Amendment, or even necessarily government actions at all. Nor does the concept of “freedom of speech” begin and end with the US 1st Amendment.
That's true, but it doesn't actually address the GP. Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll (or to take it away from someone who, in your opinion, is using it for ill).
A vital element of free speech is the ability to select which speech you choose to transmit or amplify. Otherwise the "marketplace of ideas" can no longer sort the good ideas from the bad, and it becomes a cacophony of assholes and idiots.
If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship.
It might be justifiable, it might not be, but it’s definitely within the definition of censorship and if you can’t start there, you’re arguing in bad faith to avoid uncomfortable connotations.
No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship."
And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.
But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change.
Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
> Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
You're contradicting yourself. What if someone wants to disrupt the conversation? Depending on the audience and venue, disruption can take many forms.
So a moderator moderates, and extreme cases of moderation may censor. But there is still a distinction between censorship and moderation even if there are situations where one involves the other.
If corporations have more reach than governments when it comes to open exchange of ideas, restriction on censorship needs to extend to them too.
No. If twitter says you can't, you can't. Maybe you can repost elsewhere, but not on twitter.
Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations.
That's what this argument is about... Currently, the laws don't require companies or individuals to uphold free speech when they are providing a public square venue.
If people want to create private subreddits or private Facebook groups, go ahead and moderate.
But twitter isn't doing that, they're providing a quasi public space but then dictating what can be said.
The argument were making is that is dangerous to democracy and the same free speech rights should translate here.
Arguing from the point of view of what current laws say when we are arguing that laws need changing is just tiresome, please either argue why your current laws are actually worth keeping using first principles or just stop.
Upon more thinking, I feel like maybe this was close enough to a first principles argument.
The reason I think in this case we have a right to some of these resources is due to the fact they are in essence exploiting the people's resource. We have to speak somewhere online, if you want us to congregate in your public square, we should be entitled to some regulations, in return, you get to advertise to us, charge fees for upgrades or boosting or whatever else you want to do.
Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse.
Twitter isn't a monopoly, though: there's all kinds of other social media services available, as well as other places where "public political discourse" occur.
Free speech doesn't mean you're entitled to your preferred choice of venue. I recall when I was a kid, the local Nazi didn't get a prime time spot on local TV, though I'm sure he would have wanted one. He had to make due with a public access slot that very few (if any) people would watch.
That same Nazi is also the reason passwords were implemented on the university computer clusters, because he was caught using them without permission (as a non-student) to print neonazi flyers.
Tv airwaves and physical printers are not things open to the general public.
Then again, this tweet from Jack has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that.