Part of me is thinking, "Twitter is a private company, and should literally be able to do whatever they want."
The other part is thinking, "These platforms are government-level huge, and their decisions are government-level influential. Silencing people on their platform would appear legal, but also perilous. It's like a JSOC operation to kill off some political opponent in a foreign country. Somehow they've found legal justification for silencing opponents outside the boundaries of all-out war, but......it's basically just murder without a trial. Is that really something we want? It's a stupid amount of power being wielded, and it's currently not balanced very well."
Is regulation the right answer, or does that just lead to the inevitable state-controlled media?
It would take something monumental, something that has never happened before. If only something like that happened recently. Not saying it will, but for the first time I can see a legit crack through which a third party emerges. Honestly, what does the Republican party do with the super pro Trump wing now?
Note:by super pro Trump wing, I'm not talking about conservatives who swallowed their disgust and voted for him on policy reasons or conservatives who were OK with him. I'm talking drank the koolaid, Trump is (near) infallible, elites hate us and we hate them kinds of supporters. That does not seem like a small wing still. Maybe I'm wrong
I very much want a viable third party, even if it emerges from trumpism. It would allow someone to move to the center, not be as beholden to extremes in the primaries, and just give more nuanced options.
I agree on all your points except Twitter dying. I am confident I have differing political views than Twitter leadership, but Twitter is a phenomenal real-time news source.
The problem with social media, and with regular media, is that some consumers of “news” don’t understand that the news provided by media has a bias, sometimes innocently wrong, sometimes false, and a few times fake. I think most critical thinkers understand this. Unfortunately, there are groups that struggle with that and only believe the news that coddles their world view.
Social media has the unique ability to bring like thinkers together and some is very positive. I enjoy reading the Facebook group is OSU sports fans and Jeep Wrangler owners. But is also brings together those that possess similar views that are away from reality. It allows this groups to communicate virtually and then when together physically often results in a mob mentality. DC riots are a perfect example.
With Twitter, I think the bad far outweighs the good that comes from it, I think it is uniquely bad compared to the rest of the social media outlets as it is the absolute worst method of communication and disagreement and inevitable leads to dangerous divisions over even the smallest disagreements.
It encourages news organizations and journalists to hurry to try and be first with their 200 or so characters trying to condense massive news events into a small chunk. It also encourages them to not do they're due diligence investigating the information before sticking it out there. Most social media truly causes this, but the lightning fast and small tweet limit almost requires this.
I guess that's where I get confused. If that decision says he's using it as a public forum, does that come with any strings attached for the platform being used in that manner? I try to imagine if Trump used an auditorium to announce exactly the same things he would say on twitter, but banned a dude that keeps shouting at him during his announcements, we would just shrug our shoulders. It would seem there is a disconnect on a ruling that would force Trump to let that guy into the auditorium, but could also deny Trump the right to use the auditorium in the first place. Trump can't go in there when he wants to, and the other guy can't be forced out. Feels uneven. I'm not even sure if that's a good equivalent situation, but it's the best I could come up with.
Either legally or logically. Twitter can let Donald use their services (auditorium) or not as they see fit. IF they let Donald use it, the 2nd Circuit said he can’t block anyone from seeing or responding to his tweets because of the 1st Amendment Rights of the public to seek redress and address grievances to the government are impinged upon if he does..
Citizens-protected, not restricted, by the 1st A.
Twitter-protected, not restricted, by the 1st.
Donald (President/government)-restricted by the 1st Amendment. Government doesn’t have rights under our Constitution. Only limited powers and authorities.
That is the way it works.
This is a legal discussion. Read the decision. Cite to legal authority. Law rarely deals with how something “feels”.
Told you the result of the decision and my interpretation of the law (as an attorney who has actually read the case and other relevant authority). Beyond that, I’m not interested in convincing you. Do with it what you will. *shouldershrug*