Post by Michael Gooding Post by Alan Baker Post by Michael Gooding
"They're not. The rapper Wiley has been banned from Twitter and dropped
by his sponsors after a anti-Semitic rant. Should he and others be
allowed to say what they like about Jews? "
Yes. Let's have these people in the open where we can see them.
As well, free speech so long as I agree is not free speech.
You get that Twitter is a private company, right?
And that private entities have no obligation to let you use their platform to speak if they don't like what you're saying, right?
I get that very well. I get also that they want to be thought of as a
platform, not a publisher, so they won't be subject to various laws
No, I don't think you do.
Twitter is a private entity whether they are a platform or a publisher.
In essence, Twitter is a PERSON, and other persons ask for and are
granted permission to have Twitter do something for them. To wit: make
what they say available to a wide audience.
This is no different than me setting up a loudspeaker system and people
asking me for permission to speak to the crowd at (say) the beach where
I've set it up.
1. They ask my permission
2. I tell them the rules by which they can use it.
3. They agree.
If they break those rules, I can pull the plug.
'Hateful conduct policy
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack
or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national
origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious
affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow
accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the
basis of these categories.'
'We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement,'