
Twitter sysadmin: “I’m deleting the Twitter app from all my devices” - aaronbrethorst
https://twitter.com/jaredgaut/status/1029170702509719552
======
olefoo
I do not think that @jack will have an easy time of it in the months to come.
Whatever he does will cause someone to enter into frothing ragegasms directed
at him and the company.

Yet, it's clear that twitter cannot maintain it's status as "the place where
everybody wants to be because it's where everybody is." without taking steps
to protect the quality of the experience and the integrity of it's audience.

The discomfort that Dorsey and Zuckerberg have with enforcing something like a
reality principle on their platform may have been praiseworthy and of noble
intent; but we're starting to understand that the second order effects of
letting people undermine public perceptions of truth and validity have serious
consequences that are damaging if not fatal to the society that hosts these
platforms and the workers that build and operate them.

~~~
djantje
If that is true (undermining public perceptions of thruth and validity)

Then I think there are two options available: \- Censorship \- Education

What would you choose, and think works in the long run?

~~~
O2F2
My personal believe is that neither work out in a way we'd like it to.

Censorship can, under the right circumstances, be effective but requires
either a very delicate hand and be more or less invisible or oppressing the
opposition until it exhausted itself one way or another. Sometimes it seems to
work out only to end up reinforcing believes, leading to a deeper
internalization and radicalization.

Education requires focused, continued, _honest_ effort. It requires rolling
that damn boulder up the hill until the hill itself starts to erode under your
feet. It's a excruciatingly slow process. And it's so easy to forget that it
_needs to be a dialog_ no matter how much you think you're right.

I'm a strong advocate for the latter, but it's easy to see why so many
gravitate to the former.

------
EZ-E
Can we stop with the "we try to make the word better" company mottos? You
can't say this if you're in it for the money and trying to get more every
quarter

~~~
hkai
What I read from his thread is that he wants to make the world better by
censoring Twitter users.

While I don't doubt his good intentions, I can envision many ways of how it
will go wrong.

~~~
lylecubed
It's really curious how free speech for all was a widespread liberal value
until they got control over the platforms. Now, it's free speech for me, not
for thee.

~~~
krapp
> It's really curious how free speech for all was a widespread liberal value
> until they got control over the platforms. Now, it's free speech for me, not
> for thee.

You're laboring under two misconceptions. First, that free speech is a
"liberal" value, and second, that social media platforms are run to promote a
"liberal" agenda.

~~~
lylecubed
The first is indisputable. The left pushed free speech as a liberal value for
decades (at least) specifically to get rid of blasphemy and obscenity laws.
The second: are you suggesting twitter regularly purges right wing figures,
including Republican candidates for congress, because twitter is of the
political right? And, no, Twitter is not neutral, precisely for the
aforementioned reason.

~~~
krapp
>The first is indisputable.

The first is mentioned and protected by the Constitution, and often employed
by Republicans and the right to defend and justify _their_ speech and
politics, so no.

>Are you suggesting twitter regularly purges

As soon as you used the word "purge" your bias becomes apparent, so I'm going
to find a better use of my time. Good day.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I'd like to point out that "liberal" and "leftist" are not the same thing.

Yes, they're often used interchangeably in contemporary American politics, but
the traditional usage remains. Free speech is absolutely a "liberal value" \-
and for what it's worth, that's coming from an extreme libertarian that is
diametrically opposed to most of the Democratic platform.

~~~
krapp
You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, but I don't
think the prior commenter was making that distinction, so I stand by my
comment in the context that I believe they intended.

~~~
lylecubed
I was, actually. Using English and everything. I clearly make the distinction
between left and liberal in this comment: "The left pushed free speech as a
liberal value"

------
rado
Context, please?

------
shard972
I'm sorry but this argument that "X silicon valley company is just a private
company and has no responsibility to free speech" is just not going to fly in
the coming years.

I just read another HN article about how amazon just got a $10B pentagon
contract. You can't tell me in a time where the public space has moved onto
their platforms that they have absolutely nothing to do with the government
and so have nothing to do with free speech.

~~~
oxide
It is going to fly as long as the First Amendment is worded to protect you
from the government.

Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you?
Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks
are entitled to posting tweets?

Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public
service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech
on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival
service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like
are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just
like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing.

So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems
the breaks.

~~~
lylecubed
Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies
that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are
thus subject to certain federal laws including freedom of speech. There are
two cases in particular that reference freedom of speech on private
property[0][1].

The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme
court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state
of California ruling, says ' _individuals may peacefully exercise their right
to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the
public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers_ '
and ' _states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their
constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do
not infringe on any federal constitutional rights_ '.

It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis.

[0]:
[https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner](https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner)
[1]:
[https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...](https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)

