It is not censorship when a company chooses not to endorse or distribute your messages....people are not compelled to support or endorse your speech on or using property they own
It is fair to ask why we have decided to make corporately owned platforms, in essence, the 'public square,' but that does not change the fact that these are corporately owned platforms....Twitter has every right (it is in the TIS) to comment or ban me (or anyone else)
If you went to Starbucks, and they had a bulletin board people were invited to use, and you chose to post a racist message...it is not first-amendment protected censorship for Starbucks to take it down...if you put up a lie, they can contest what you said
I also suspect it pisses people off mostly because they know what they are posting is nonsense, and are angry they are not being allowed to uncritically post propaganda (when they had been using exactly that method to expand their own reach)
While publishers have different protections, if a publisher chooses not to publish your letter to the editor, or to editorially comment, to do so is not in violation of your first amendment rights
Section 230 mostly has little to do with any of this, and the people pushing repeal know it. What Section 230 does is protect platform companies from being sued for what YOU post on their platform....removing those protections would result in MORE not less suppression of speech
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
