undefined | Better HN

0 pointskevinmchugh7y ago0 comments

> You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example.

What does this mean? Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, et al already have their constitutionally protected speech, except for where their roles as executives at public companies restrict them. If they find those restrictions onerous they can leave their roles.

0 comments

dEnigma7y ago

I think they meant requiring industry-leading companies to apply freedom of speech on their platforms. That is, no censoring of comments, videos, reviews, etc. as long as they don't violate the law.

kevinmchughOP7y ago

So the idea is to "require freedom of speech to apply" by prohibiting corporations from setting their own terms of service, spam policies, etc? That sounds like a very serious restraint of speech.

apcragg7y ago

The government cannot compel speech. I don't think that using the power of the government to require some types of speech against the wishes of private entities solves the problem you think it's solving...

dEnigma7y ago

To clarify: I was just explaining what the above commenter meant, not stating my own opinion on the matter.

sleepysysadmin7y ago

If Twitter decides tomorrow to ban the right-wing from their platform. They absolutely legally can. If you watch the recent Joe Rogan video with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey. They didn't realize they were slowly banning the right-wing and allowing left-wing terrorists to stay on Twitter. They absolutely didn't realize they were doing this and they are going to look at fixing this.

The government however could come in and simply make it that you have freedom of speech on social media. So if Twitter bans someone for saying "a man cannot be a woman" that person can sue them.

The democrats will NOT do this however, the current censorship on social media is benefiting the left-wing.

kevinmchughOP7y ago

The company twitter has set its terms of service. That is speech. What you're suggesting is eliminating the corporation's ability to do speak in that manner.

Do you believe the US government has the ability to simply prohibit speech by corporate entities? Is it in accordance with free speech principles for a federal government to prohibit certain types of speech?

sleepysysadmin7y ago

By forcing freedom of speech onto twitter for example. I don't see how that would be restricting their speech.

Personally I see this as something that will come eventually. However, I don't think that's what Twitter should do.

My idea is that twitter should act more like the united nations. You create a 'diplomatic immunity' type of account that people can request. It can be something like:

Minimum 50,000 followers.

Account history of 1 year.

If approved you can no longer edit or delete your posts; but you also cant be kicked off twitter or other be harmed by rules of twitter.

this by itself will solve the problem that twitter has.

smadge7y ago

I don't think terms of service, basically a contract, fall under free speech. If you and I make a verbal contract that you will assassinate someone we are still breaking the law because assassinations are illegal. Our free speech isn't being violated when we are arrested for doing something illegal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dEnigma7y ago

I think they meant requiring industry-leading companies to apply freedom of speech on their platforms. That is, no censoring of comments, videos, reviews, etc. as long as they don't violate the law.

kevinmchughOP7y ago

So the idea is to "require freedom of speech to apply" by prohibiting corporations from setting their own terms of service, spam policies, etc? That sounds like a very serious restraint of speech.

apcragg7y ago

dEnigma7y ago

To clarify: I was just explaining what the above commenter meant, not stating my own opinion on the matter.

sleepysysadmin7y ago

The government however could come in and simply make it that you have freedom of speech on social media. So if Twitter bans someone for saying "a man cannot be a woman" that person can sue them.

The democrats will NOT do this however, the current censorship on social media is benefiting the left-wing.

kevinmchughOP7y ago

The company twitter has set its terms of service. That is speech. What you're suggesting is eliminating the corporation's ability to do speak in that manner.

sleepysysadmin7y ago

By forcing freedom of speech onto twitter for example. I don't see how that would be restricting their speech.

Personally I see this as something that will come eventually. However, I don't think that's what Twitter should do.

My idea is that twitter should act more like the united nations. You create a 'diplomatic immunity' type of account that people can request. It can be something like:

Minimum 50,000 followers.

Account history of 1 year.

If approved you can no longer edit or delete your posts; but you also cant be kicked off twitter or other be harmed by rules of twitter.

this by itself will solve the problem that twitter has.

smadge7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse