Except government has treated these companies as utilities which has allowed them to become monopolistic and defacto public squares.
-
-
-
Indeed. If they are subjectively determining what speech gets to flow through their platforms (aside from banning criminal activity) then they should be treated as publishers and held accountable for what appears on their platforms.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Question is - can a ToS require behaviours of you outside of use of the service? Can pay pal, for example, stop processing your payments if your iPhone overhears you saying something homophobic while it's in your pocket? How long before this isn't a hypothetical?
-
Yesterday
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
He was off site when he said those comments. Should a company be able to deny you service for something you do in other circumstances? Should amazon be able to deny you service because you broke their terms of service 9 months ago on another online-store?
-
Sounds like Silicon Valley is importing a version of China's social credit system. When behavior on one platform gets you kicked off another getting banned on one platform will become justification to ban you on the next.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
According to Carl, he followed the ToS. He was banned for speech outside of the service.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ThPdCicEsg …
-
That is correct. Patreon banned him for something he said on another platform not on their platform... which is quite bizarre to me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I completely agree that it's not a 1A issue. What the issue is, is that a company is pretending to operate outside of any bias and pretending to make objective decisions - while in reality operating in an extremely partisan way.
-
It is a situation where they've been pretending for so long, that they've started believing their own lies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People need to acquaint themselves with Marsh v Alabama. SCOTUS ruled than even in a privately owned space, one which the owner dominates like the state, 1st Amendment applies. When an owner opens his property up to the public in general, then it is less a private space.
-
In public v private, SCOTUS noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. SCOTUS held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms.
-
Twitter and Patreon are a bit different. Twitter has a near monopoly; only the one in China is comparable. It privately owns what is a public space. Patreon has other competitors, so a user may shift to a comparable service. That option does not exist when banned from Twitter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They should also strive to hold all people to the same standard, regarding their ToS. There shouldn't be two sets of rules out there.
-
Their standard is impossible. See the video Sargon made. It's all content they can find online, over time and without context, and maintains a bizarre claim their Manifest Observable Behavior (MOB) removes human decision making.
-
As Michael said, it's a private company and as such, they can adopt whatever bullshit rules they want. My only issue that I feel I can rightfully have is that those rules are applied differently, from person to person. Nevermind situations where there's no justification at all.
-
I don't think they can adopt any rule without liability when it comes to off-platform material. 1) We're akin to bank/grocer denying service for what you Tweet. 2) With the success here and the quality of a/v manipulation, it's not long before we see fakes cause deplatforming.
-
Well, fake shit has already caused no shortage of issues on Social Media as it is, so it should come as no surprise that further advances in tech, will allow for more shenanigans. The problem is how easily people have been sold (especially those who should know better) hoaxes.
-
At this point, I actually wait 2 days before having any reaction on any news story, because the chances of it being false, or improperly reported etc... are so high, for example.
-
A good practice. However, publishers have immunity. I'm talking liability based on info that Patreon can't possibly prove. Kicking him off these platforms does harm to his income and reputation. Now throw in they have no mechanism for determining accuracy on off platform posts.
-
Quite true, the problem is the effectiveness of the social media mob. From Patreon's perspective, they have this massive influx of potential bad press/PR, which they feel (rightfully or wrongfully) the need to react to. That's the sticking point, and where Freedom of Assoc, is.
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.