You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
1/ No-platforming, censoring and banning are each odious forms of a more general mature concept we might call “down regulation.” Societal desire to properly down-regulate an Alex Jones when he’s being a horrible twit is a noble one. But it should be through legitimate process.https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593 …
2/ And what the ^%*&ing hell does “permanently suspended” mean? I looked up suspend to make sure I wasn’t losing it. You can’t permanently suspend people. If it’s permanent, you aren’t suspending. That’s creepy Orwellian corporate speech. Just say what you actually did Twitter.pic.twitter.com/OHK9MtNj3k
End/ This all concerns me. So many people are so happy to see Alex Jones gone that they aren’t seeing who will follow. Believe me that many of us in this network believe that ultimately they will work their way down to accounts like the ones you trust to unspin your news.
The only acceptable "down regulation" in an allegedly free society is people voluntarily muting/ignoring/blocking/not reading Alex or whoever has an opinion/personality they do not like. Everything else is censorship. Or a mature euphemism.
Are you saying the words should not carry legal jeopardy in our society? Really...
Twitter and other legacy platforms censoring users has nothing to do with "legal". Alex has not announced to kill someone (unlike to a TON of accounts with blue checkmarks who do this on a regular basis without consequences).
>has nothing to do with "legal". Exactly. That is the point. Twitter has the right, and the obligation, to control content on their shareholder owned platform. Twitter is a public company. Board-Of-Directors and CEO have the responsibility of maintaining shareholder value.
That’s the interesting thing. The reality is that Twitter is owned. The experience and use of Twitter, however, is free-form and more analogous to the internet at whole where profiles are like websites in and of themselves.
When people go less and less to actual webpages, which can’t be banned, and more content is represented on singular platforms, banning someone is more akin to censorship.
Absolutely. I live in South America. People here often get "free Facebook" with their mobile plans. They don't even realize there is more than FB, they think Facebook IS the Internet. Corporate censorship is bad everywhere, but its role globally can not be overestimated.
Everyone wants the invisible hand of the free market until it squeezes their favorite conspiracy theorist.
The market didn't do it though. Unless I misunderstand that the Twitter corporation itself is choosing not to view Alex Jones' tweets. They perma-ban people, that isn't a reflection of everyone on Twitter or individuals choosing not to view his garbage.
They are a business. We'll see if the market reacts in such a way that they change their minds. They are a business. They can choose to offer their platform through any TOS they choose. Or do you not like that sort of freedom?
The critical distinction remains between down-regulation by centralized fiat, versus down-regulation by some form of emergent consensus.
@Twitter must open source their quality metrics, and incorporate more mechanisms for emergent self-regulation.
Else, they are mere tyrants.
It is. He violated the terms of service. Multiple times.
Bullshit. That's your claim, prove it. I see accounts get suspended and punted off Twitter all the time for violating terms of service.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
