Unless…
It’s absolutely not true. Those platforms allow for your voice to reach farther, faster and cheaper… but it isn’t required for you to be a person.
Your voice isn’t taken away if you can’t tweet. Come on.
Wouldn’t they be in violation of CRA?
They already do refuse certain speech in their store. I cannot bring a bullhorn in Walmart and scream “you all are supporting China”
I still don’t understand.
It has been advocated by you in this very thread that private platforms should be forced to carry the content of everyone for free because public accommodation laws exist.
Now… I know you don’t believe these positions.
So what is really going on?
I accused the mods of absolutely nothing.
I stated there is nothing objective about application of TOS and I made it clear the same goes for places like Twitter and FB…even when they use algorithmic methods.
If anything, you ware making a claim that the mods here are a different type of human being than every other human being that ever lived.
This is the same silly argument.
Because of X (which I don’t support) then Y ( which is also don’t support)
Why argue for something that we all know you don’t support?
Are you sure. You do understand I’m not talking about your literal, physiological voice, right?
What voice does AOC have without Twitter?
Thank you.
Can anybody bring a bull horn into Walmart and scream anything?
1 Like
Twitch
It’s not X and Y
It is the basis and rationalizations for public accommodation statutes in both cases. You just want to pick.
Horse hockey. She chooses Twitter for a reason.
I don’t recall you ever defended that bakery.
I’m arguing for consistency…try it sometimes.
2 Likes
I know you mean figuratively lose their voice. Still ridiculous
Should I demand that my Twitter account come with 1 million followers? Right now I have 5. Therefore my voice is suppressed… right?
Walmart employees probably can.
Some mismanaged Walmart’s might allow that. You aren’t guaranteed equal application for all rules.
I am not making an all or nothing argument.
There is no connection as to one regulation existing that the other should have to exist.
A more honest argument would be to argue on the merits of the issue at hand without trying for dumb tricks.
If you don’t support forcing private platforms to carry content that they do not want to carry, then why spend time arguing the exact opposite?
What product is Twitter refusing to produce for potential users?
Odd. Using the state to force private interests to carry political messages seems like something a free speech advocate would oppose, not support.
No?
Outside of trying to make this about public accommodation laws, what is your true opinion on forcing private platforms to carry content that they do not want to carry for free?
Is it? I can find a gazillion Xs or whatever is 18 now to agree with me. You’re showing your age.
No. It is not suppressed, you have the same voice from Twitter with 5 or 1M.
And? Is that public access? I doubt it they can.
Management (execution) and policy the same thing?
That was weak.
And he would be right.
1 Like
Free speech is free, not "protected by government fiat’.
That wasn’t the question that was asked.
She also spends a ton of time on Twitch.
I know! You’re trying to pick and choose. Kinda the point. Not liberal.
Yes there is. Public accommodation of service.
Fundamentals and principles are not “dumb tricks”. There is no trick here and I am arguing the merits of the issue - the whole issue - not the bits and pieces that suit you. Your motte and bailey won’t work.
I haven’t spent a second arguing for them. You assumed I was. I have been arguing against them the whole time - but all of them.