Twitter's business is literally as a platform. They receive legal protections from what is on their site (and consequences thereof) ONLY if they apply all of their rules evenhandedly. They absolutely do not. They blatantly censor and cherry pick. Therefore, they are not a platform. Therefore, they are a publisher. Therefore, their legal protections must be stripped. They are not holding up their end of the deal and functioning as an evenhanded platform. It will be very easy to prove too.
The NFL is obviously a completely different business. Their business isn't literally free speech and being a platform. It's not the same thing. They are an employer and are allowed to require certain standards to represent them in public, at least while "on the clock." Would you get fired if you were a cashier and you kneeled during your job and started reciting the communist manifesto or something? Conflating a company who literally exists with legal protections by CLAIMING to be an evenhanded speech platform, to any other business, is just wrong.
Twitter has legal protections on the condition that they are an evenhanded platform and not a publisher. It's the law. They are not allowed to edit and cherry pick. If they choose to do so, they are legally responsible for everything occurring on their site, and the consequences thereof.
Example: If an agreed upon by definition publisher (say, Fox news, or Washington Post) published something saying to assassinate a President, or to go kill people of a certain persuasion.... they would feel the full brunt of the law for those actions. Twitter must be held to that same standard IF they refuse to allow free speech.
If they allow free speech and apply their rules evenly, they can reasonably claim that the burden is on whoever is writing something. However, if they choose to allow some questionable content, but choose to heavily censor anything from other points of view, they no longer have protection. They are complicit.
"muh private company" is NOT a defense for a company that literally markets itself as a platform for all. They make no mention in any advertising materials that they censor opinions of content of posts. Instead they hide that in fine print in Terms of Service that shouldn't exist. If they want to censor content they don't like, they should be made to disclose that with a big banner on advertising materials and on their sign up page. You don't get to be both a platform for everyone AND get to censor what they say
You don't get HIRED at Twitter to post things. Anyone can join and post crap. Therefore, they cannot stop any speech since the people on your platform are NOT your employees
Twitter isn't any more a private company than AT&T is/was. Their traffic is crossing all manner of publicly owned infrastructure. They cannot exist without that traffic.
If Twitter and the other Silicon Valley prog corporations want to fall back on being a private company, they are free to go forth and create a privately owned network for their private enterprise to operate on. Not likely.
Twitter claims to be a "platform" and thus protected from lawsuits. By injecting their own leftist editorials, they are now a publisher and CAN be sued for false claims, slander, discrimination and bias.
The NFL is totally different. They are a private company and CAN regulate the speech (& behavior) of employees when the employee chooses to use the relationship with the employer for their own speech/behavior. Kapernick can take a knee, just not when wearing an NFL uniform!
They are a platform. That means they may not act as a publisher and editorialize content or stifle free speech. They must abide by the rules and special privilege of being a platform (which includes significant taxation benefits and cannot be held legally liable for users posts).
They are a private company and they may censor as they see fit, IF they are publishers and suffer all the negative aspects of being a publisher.
“I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe He brought me this far,” Clinton
“We don’t feel no ways tired, we’ve come too far,” Biden
Twitter's business is literally as a platform. They receive legal protections from what is on their site (and consequences thereof) ONLY if they apply all of their rules evenhandedly. They absolutely do not. They blatantly censor and cherry pick. Therefore, they are not a platform. Therefore, they are a publisher. Therefore, their legal protections must be stripped. They are not holding up their end of the deal and functioning as an evenhanded platform. It will be very easy to prove too.
The NFL is obviously a completely different business. Their business isn't literally free speech and being a platform. It's not the same thing. They are an employer and are allowed to require certain standards to represent them in public, at least while "on the clock." Would you get fired if you were a cashier and you kneeled during your job and started reciting the communist manifesto or something? Conflating a company who literally exists with legal protections by CLAIMING to be an evenhanded speech platform, to any other business, is just wrong.
You think a lowly redditor can put all those concepts together? cmon.
I mean it's really NOT that hard to understand. I have to assume people who claim not to understand are just being willfully ignorant.
Whoa buddy. Easy on the facts and logic. You might short circuit his NPC main frame.
The OP
It is so accurate.
Learn what a private company is first
Twitter has legal protections on the condition that they are an evenhanded platform and not a publisher. It's the law. They are not allowed to edit and cherry pick. If they choose to do so, they are legally responsible for everything occurring on their site, and the consequences thereof.
Example: If an agreed upon by definition publisher (say, Fox news, or Washington Post) published something saying to assassinate a President, or to go kill people of a certain persuasion.... they would feel the full brunt of the law for those actions. Twitter must be held to that same standard IF they refuse to allow free speech.
If they allow free speech and apply their rules evenly, they can reasonably claim that the burden is on whoever is writing something. However, if they choose to allow some questionable content, but choose to heavily censor anything from other points of view, they no longer have protection. They are complicit.
"muh private company" is NOT a defense for a company that literally markets itself as a platform for all. They make no mention in any advertising materials that they censor opinions of content of posts. Instead they hide that in fine print in Terms of Service that shouldn't exist. If they want to censor content they don't like, they should be made to disclose that with a big banner on advertising materials and on their sign up page. You don't get to be both a platform for everyone AND get to censor what they say
You don't get HIRED at Twitter to post things. Anyone can join and post crap. Therefore, they cannot stop any speech since the people on your platform are NOT your employees
I am sure that doesn't make sense to you though
Twitter isn't any more a private company than AT&T is/was. Their traffic is crossing all manner of publicly owned infrastructure. They cannot exist without that traffic.
If Twitter and the other Silicon Valley prog corporations want to fall back on being a private company, they are free to go forth and create a privately owned network for their private enterprise to operate on. Not likely.
Twitter claims to be a "platform" and thus protected from lawsuits. By injecting their own leftist editorials, they are now a publisher and CAN be sued for false claims, slander, discrimination and bias.
The NFL is totally different. They are a private company and CAN regulate the speech (& behavior) of employees when the employee chooses to use the relationship with the employer for their own speech/behavior. Kapernick can take a knee, just not when wearing an NFL uniform!
They are a platform. That means they may not act as a publisher and editorialize content or stifle free speech. They must abide by the rules and special privilege of being a platform (which includes significant taxation benefits and cannot be held legally liable for users posts).
They are a private company and they may censor as they see fit, IF they are publishers and suffer all the negative aspects of being a publisher.
Now fuck off troll.
"they're gonna have y'all back in chains" Biden
“I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe He brought me this far,” Clinton
“We don’t feel no ways tired, we’ve come too far,” Biden