• Toribor@corndog.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Free speech is good and must be protected

    I agree, but Twitter has nothing to do with free speech. Period. It’s not like the government is going around throwing people in prison for being racist fucks on Twitter. Twitter can moderate content if they want to. If they don’t want to moderate content they don’t have to as long as the material isn’t illegal.

    I don’t know why people keep thinking this has anything to do with the first amendment at all. Twitter is not public, not even close.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree, but Twitter has nothing to do with free speech.

      Twitter positions itself as the Internet’s public square, and free speech certainly does apply in an old-fashioned offline public square, so yeah, Twitter kinda does have something to do with free speech. Don’t seek power if you don’t want the responsibility it comes with.

      • There’s no such thing as “the internet’s public square”. It is the “X-owned public square”. In an offline public square, the government owns the square, so free speech protections apply. But this “square” is privately owned. There’s an incredibly fundamental difference here.

      • ranandtoldthat@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how it works, what you are talking about is often called freeze peach.

        Until Twitter can fine you or lock you up for saying the wrong thing or exercise prior restraint over all your expression, it’s not a free speech issue.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          By positioning itself as the Internet’s public square, Twitter seeks a monopoly over public discourse. If it is successful, then yes, it can exercise prior restraint over virtually all of your expression.

          • TehPers@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It can succeed in that endeavor the moment I become unemployable. I’m not making an account there, never will, and I will die on this hill.

      • garrett@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re mostly right but there’s a host of nuance and legalese that muddies this up. Social media is always in a conflicted relationship with speech, wanting to have no culpability over what’s posted while also making decisions over what to feature/restrict/etc. They’re actually really cautious to not position themselves as the “town square” for that reason since it does channel a sort of legal definition of such.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since it is Musk that manages the “Internet’s public square”, it isn’t a public square at all.