Because I don't think being strongly pro-free speech means that I have to allow everyone to join *my* conversation.https://twitter.com/n8r0n74/status/926595942697938945 …
-
-
I think we've been over this pt, too. The original thread was about whether using it in that way is consistent w/ being pro free speech.
-
Yes but then you said Twitter got to decide. I support free speech by encouraging all ideas to be expressed in my conversations.
-
I've honestly lost the thread here. Again, b/c I can't scroll up and see what you're referring to.
-
I can. I said 'Who gets to decide who I have dealings with' and you said 'Twitter.' So I pointed out Twitter lets me decide.
-
Ah, yes, thank you. I don't think that's inconsistent w/ what I've said. TBC, if Twitter bans, that may be anti-free-speech, too.
-
That would be, yes. Because that stops the person from speaking on Twitter and also others from hearing them. Me, opting myself out, doesn't
-
It does prevent them in speaking in threads that you've started (and are RTd), which we seem to disagree on, regarding *ownership*.
-
Yes. My intellectual property & I will withhold them as I see fit. Of course, people can find a way round this but not on my threads
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Block, mute, protected acc, DM are all tools available for Twitter users. Semantics to say one is anti free speech.
-
No. Not semantics. They all work in different ways. The last 3 are not exploiting public space w/o allowing others to join.
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.
