We shouldn't be reinforcing the idea that Facebook, YouTube, etc are the "public square" and promote actual public spaces instead. An argument that they're de facto public isn't convincing, maybe you're arguing they should be appropriated and made actually public (nationalized)?
-
-
-
Why isn't it convincing that they constitute a de facto public square? They are platforms on which a huge percentage of public discourse takes place. They grant entry to anyone. They're enormously influential. The characterization seems totally apt.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also, I can’t believe that you’re defending someone who regularly harassed the families of mass shooting victims by pushing a false narrative that they were “crisis actors” and that their dead family members never existed.
-
It's extremely easy to hate Alex Jones and to accuse anyone who questions the implications of what was done of "defending him." That's what most people are doing, so you're in good company
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Your statement is false on multiple levels. First of all, lots of people obviously "fucking care" as evidenced by the enormous response yesterday. It's false that I "never posted on behalf of the J20 protestors." And "hill to die on" is one of the worst online cliches.
- 1 more reply
-
-
-
Yet corporations wield tremendous power over our government. I would argue that they are acting as government agents in a sense. This is frightening.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
We need a Digital Bill of Rights!
#SocialMedia is the forum on which more & more people share information & arguments - If we allow unwanted voices to be muted it only distorts the picture, but even when 99% of MSM stated#HillaryClinton will be President, it did not make it so! -
Alex Jones has been doing his thing for years. The govt. that strongarmed tech companies into banning him aren't concerned about Alex Jones. He's an unsympathetic foot in the door to control the accessible communication that made the Arab Spring possible.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
He has his own web space. Losing access to the media networks hurts him but it’s what happens since he breaks the rules. He can share his ideas and then be banned/ignored/discredited for it. That’s the freedom of the idea marketplace.
-
Do you think the 'rules' are applied objectively and fairly?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's not a "public square" it's more like a large bar and the bartender is having no more of Jones' shit.
-
The problem is it feels like a public square but it has a few owners with closely aligned interests and susceptibility to state pressure. Incorporated in the belly of an empire, outsized centralized media censoring content is indistinguishable from state limiting free expression.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
For fks sake, a private company’s platform isn’t the public square. It’s their rules and you agreed to abide by when you signed up. Stop making disingenuous arguments like a hack.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is his own website not part of the public square?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
A Federal law needs to be passed where social platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter—while corporate— are treated as public utilities since they represent total monopolies of public communication; they are mass transmission lines.
#TuesdayThoughts#Censorship -
They also act as publisher & editor. Every person can block what they find unacceptable but to hand that authority over to any agency is dangerous.
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.