Virtually nobody claims Alex Jones had a formal legal right to access any of the platforms he was banished from. But that's exactly the issue. He was effectively vanquished from the public square -- and there's no legal recourse, checks and balances, or oversight mechanism
-
-
then they should be nationalized. if they will have the power of governments going forward, and there’s zero indication they won’t, then the governed should be in charge of how they work
-
I am very much open to proposals for some form of public ownership
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The public vs. private argument has to be addressed first so that everybody is working from the same definitions before the censorship argument can really be addressed. Just seems like an order of operations problem in the logic of the argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They're spying on U.S. citizens for U.S. gov. worse than Booz Allen did (imo).However they've papered over their relationship for deniability Google & Facebook are government contractors, crony capitalists not Ayn Rand brand capitalists...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They don't have public accountability. You keep running headlong into the argument that as private companies they can do as they please. Your "public" assertions don't get to the root cause and thus stay tied to Jones as a personality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They can be the place where we have most of the public discourse but they’re not the public square. They’re privately owned platforms. They grant anyone entry who clicks “I AGREE” to their terms of service. Do You want nationalize these platforms? Or have them self regulate?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
But a “public square” is public property. Facebook and Twitter are not. They are private sector companies.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Your definition of public could apply to a much larger array of platforms. Also, pretty clearly they don't grant entry to anyone. Public access is the first order disagreement people seem to be having here. That assertion doesn't seem to be well accepted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So start your own platform and compete.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because they aren't publicly owned. I can choose to host a political free-for-all in my backyard every Saturday, but that doesn't mean I cease to own my backyard or can't kick out any Nazis who show up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then they should be wholly owned by the public
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
because they're private entities and a theoretical mandate to not engage in viewpoint discrimination violates their rights?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.