re: Twitter to cancel all “Q Anon” groups

quote:

---

Twitter is not the government nor is it run the government. They are literally a company choosing who to serve, what’s more Capitalist than that?

---

Remember when Leftists told us “corporations weren’t people“, so they couldn’t be allowed to partake political activity? I member.

That's good info, and a welcome perspective.

There's definitely meat on the bone of their inaction against similar censorship of BLM/ANTIFA comms, particularly in light of their "behavior that may lead to offline harm" or however they worded it.

I forsee that being the moment they really fricked up with their rationalization of the action.

It makes me wonder if there's an angle that being banned by Twitter is depriving you of a means of access to your President/elected officials. It's certainly not the only avenue, but arguably the most convenient.

UNCLE MAO!!!!!!

GREAT LEAP FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Then why are they allowed to hide behind the government's legal protections for platforms when they clearly subjectively censor content?

---

The government protects a lot of freedoms. The US Constitution enumerated many of them. That doesn’t make everyone a government actor.

quote:

---

There's definitely meat on the bone of their inaction against similar censorship of BLM/ANTIFA comms, particularly in light of their "behavior that may lead to offline harm" or however they worded it.

I forsee that being the moment they really fricked up with their rationalization of the action.

---

It makes them hypocritical, but I don’t know if it makes what they did illegal.

quote:

---

It makes me wonder if there's an angle that being banned by Twitter is depriving you of a means of access to your President/elected officials. It's certainly not the only avenue, but arguably the most convenient.

---

You can still read Twitter if you don’t have an account, right? But Twitter is not charged with providing you access to your public officials. I know of no law or duty imposing that burden on them. Absent something from Congress, it would be legislated entirely from the bench by roping Twitter into some sort of government actor role which they clearly are not.

You can try the utility angle, but Twitter isn’t the internet. They’re simply a service that uses the internet, so that’s a tough sell. Antitrust and anticompetitive behavior is largely focused on suppressing other competitors in the marketplace, not choosing which customers you want to allow to use your service.

There really isn’t a good vehicle right now by which to attack them for the front-end banishment from their site.

Congress would have to get involved in some way.

quote:

---

But Twitter is not charged with providing you access to your public officials

---

It does not and if Twitter deleted the account of current elected officials from either/every party it would be fine by me.

quote:

---

but I don’t know if it makes what they did illegal.

---

And FTR, I definitely don't think it's illegal or should be illegal.

But for people to say there is no freedom of speech implication just because it isn't a govt actor or First Amendment protected is just idiotic.

If you cede all effective mass communication channels to a few companies and then decide you don't really care about censorship as long as your precise views aren't the ones being restricted, then you'd better bet it's a free speech issue.

And I'm not talking to you directly. Just agreeing with you and elaborating.

quote:

---

But for people to say there is no freedom of speech implication just because it isn't a govt actor or First Amendment protected is just idiotic.

If you cede all effective mass communication channels to a few companies and then decide you don't really care about censorship as long as your precise views aren't the ones being restricted, then you'd better bet it's a free speech issue.

---

There is no mention of publishing houses or printing presses in the Constitution, and rightfully so. Twitter is simply a 21st century printing press. They do not charge the user to disseminate information, but they still retain the right to do business with who they choose to associate with. If they choose to block out a faction of users from using their service, market forces will dictate whether another printing house can come into existence to serve those users.

The government should police anti-competitive behavior on the back end, but there is no front end free speech guarantee that Twitter owes anyone. The market needs to solve this problem, not the government picking winners and losers.

This is a battle for the soul of American and we will win. Stay steadfast in your fight, Patriots!

Michael Knowles:

quote:

---

Where was Twitter's anti-conspiracy theory policy during the four years in which every leftist blue check baselessly accused the President of being a Russian spy?

---