Sure. Companies can choose to support freedom of expression of not. We can then evaluate the company based on the decisions it makes.https://twitter.com/sherlockmichael/status/807124916239634436 …
THis is a different issue to whether or not private companies which platform talks shld be required to allow free speech
-
-
I don't think that's different at all. Imagine a town has 1 company. If that company censors or bans speakers, town is cut off
-
Then have more companies. You can't make the only one that sets up platform the things you want it to.
-
you just described a major problem the US has. We DON'T have more companies. Monopolies exist, and they're not going away.
-
We're talking about places people can express their views. When Twitter banned some ppl, other online companies set up.
-
We can criticise universities for not hosting radfems, conservatives, Islamists etc but we can't make them do it.
-
a speech at a university may well be the only chance for people to hear different points of view, and would help fight fake news
-
No. People can access the internet at libraries if they cannot afford it at home.
-
they don't though. That's the phenomenon we're seeing. Most people don't seek alternative views
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
sort of mirrors private businesses refusing service. Not everyone has opportunity to seek other service, creating inequality
-
No. A science conference does not have to host creationists. Or basket weavers. It can talk abt science & invite certain scientists
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.