Do you also ask that question of all the other companies that serve "people who push ivermectin", etc.? The power company, the bank that holds their money, the grocery store that sells them food, etc.?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
No, because selling food to a conspiracy theorist doesn't harm anyone. Giving them a platform to spread dangerous misinformation does hurt people. E.g. the Bret Weinstein fan who didn't get vaccinated and later died of Covid.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @cmuratori
who gets to decide what is "misinformation?" as far as i'm concerned, *i am the only one who gets to decide that. i don't trust any other entity to make that decision on my behalf.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @androth4 @cmuratori
I just don't think a private company should be required by law to platform whatever misinformation someone wants to disseminate. There will always be platforms who welcome those kinds of folks anyway
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @cmuratori
misinformation is a relative term. these companies will gladly platform any misinformation that aligns with the politics of the predominant corporate culture. they have rules of conduct, but they apply those rules selectively based on subjective interpretation of "misinformation"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @androth4 @cmuratori
I completely disagree, it's actually pretty easy to figure out what's true and what's not if you're prepared to do a few hours of reading (99.99% of Twitter are not) providing the information is available
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @androth4
Unilateral policies are never enforced "fairly", so that assertion cannot be part of the discussion. If unilateral adjudication worked, countries wouldn't have a judicial branch, they'd just have an executive branch.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
In general, one _has to assume_ that giving a company the power to censor _necessarily assumes_ it will be unfair, because that is by definition what you have when you have no legal representation or access to an impartial judiciary.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @androth4
I was just disagreeing with the idea that misinformation is a relative term. As to your point, I think a reasonable regulation would be that companies have to publish their terms of service (Twitter doesn't for example, to my knowledge) and apply them consistently
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @androth4
There is no such thing as "apply them consistently". Again, that is why we have a judicial branch. There will always be disagreements about what is a "consistent" application of a Terms of Service agreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
(Unless you are proposing that the Terms of Service agreements cannot ever use the phrase 'in Twitter's sole discretion' and that Twitter will be held liable in a real court of law if the court disagrees with their application of the terms?)
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.