undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoldtea5y ago0 comments

>Maybe assholes shouldn't be able to use these platforms to shape public opinion and influence elections and news

And who judges who is the asshole objectively?

For example, in my book a president who actively bombed 7 countries, continued wars he was elected to stop, under whose terms ICE deported more people at the border than Trump (wall or no wall), gave Wall Street a "too big to fail" bailout, enlarged surveillance and hunted several whistleblowers and threatened journalists, is more of an asshole (and a danger) than another who is just a crass business/tv personality that wrote mean tweets and that rednecks liked. That's whether the former has had more political experience or is a smoother talker, and polite company.

But that's just me, and neither is even my President, so...

>Maybe having a Twitter account is a privilege, and not a right, and that privilege is correctly granted on the precondition that one will not act like an asshole.

No, I'd say that having an account to social platforms above some population reach level shouldn't be a "privilege" but a right (that is, subject to due process/law, not up to the whims of the company).

Else, those who control said platforms (where the majority of the public frequents and where most of public discourse happens), also control the public dialogue.

0 comments

krapp5y ago

>And who judges who is the asshole objectively?

If Obama, or any other President, had acted the way Trump did on Twitter, I'd have no issue with them being banned, either.

>No, I'd say that having an account to social platforms above some population reach level shouldn't be a "privilege" but a right

And who judges what is a "social platform" objectively? Because you've just granted the government the right to use its monopoly on force to remove fundamental rights like freedom of speech and association from the people running any website which meets some arbitrary "population reach" threshold.

To me, that's a lot scarier than platforms fact-checking statements or banning racists and people calling for violence or spreading misinformation.

>(that is, subject to due process/law, not up to the whims of the company).

Companies aren't anarchist collectives, they are subject to due process and the law. You just disagree with companies having the right to choose with whom they do business, and with Twitter and other big social media platforms being able to moderate content and ban people. But they're still doing so within the framework of a state and its laws.

coldteaOP5y ago

>And who judges what is a "social platform" objectively? Because you've just granted the government the right to use its monopoly on force to remove fundamental rights like freedom of speech and association from the people running any website which meets some arbitrary "population reach" threshold.

Actually it's the opposite: I "granted the government the right to use its monopoly on force to ENFORCE fundamental rights like freedom of speech and association from the people running any website which meets some arbitrary "population reach" threshold".

And the arbitrary threshold wont be that arbitrary if it's legally defined. We have lots of such thresholds in law (from "age of consent" and "21 to be allowed to drink", to "statue of limitations").

>You just disagree with companies having the right to choose with whom they do business

They can pick their vendors (whom they do business with), but not their users, same way a grocery store can't (and doesn't in a civilized country) just send you away ("refusal of service").

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse