Current Events > "Twitter can ban whoever they want, they're a private business"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Playing devils advocate here but I keep seeing this on Reddit and it drives me bananas considering Twitter Inc is a publicly traded company >_>

---

Publicly traded is still privately owned.

---

Yes? That doesn't change the private nature (that is, not owned/operated by the government) of the company. It having shareholders and its shares being available to the public for trade does not change that characterization.

---

Freedom of speech only protects you from the government if the gov owned twitter then sure but they dont sheesh

Just make your own platform

But they'll shut that down too

---

TheHoldSteady posted...

Playing devils advocate here but I keep seeing this on Reddit and it drives me bananas considering Twitter Inc is a publicly traded company >_>

The words you're using don't mean what you think they mean, that is your problem.

I don't think tc is talking about the freedom of speech angle here, guys.

---

for the dumb dumbs that dont know what freedom of speech entails

The freedom of speech angle isn't the only way the characterization is wrong.

---

i'm honestly not sure if it's worse if TC is trolling or if he's actually this misinformed.

---

Twitter being publicly traded still doesn't mean it's owned by the government.

---

Medussa posted...

i'm honestly not sure if it's worse if TC is trolling or if he's actually this misinformed.

Probably a joke topic

---

Conservatives: Muh free market!
*Twitter bans Trump*
Conservatives: No! Not like that!

Publicly traded companies are still owned by investors and not the government

---

King_Hutton posted...

Publicly traded companies are still owned by investors and not the government

The investors are the public >_>

---

Muh private business is no excuse in their case, they are a platform not a publisher like say the NYT or the WSJ.
---

tc just being willfully stupid at this point this is concern trolling

TheHoldSteady posted...

The investors are the public >_>

Are you fucking with me right now or do you actually not understand this?

---

King_Hutton posted...

Are you fucking with me right now or do you actually not understand this?

The former

---

TheHoldSteady posted...

The investors are the public >_>

The public can ban your free speech.

The government cant.
---

TheHoldSteady posted...

The investors are the public >_>

ah, youre just trolling

go on then

---

TheHoldSteady posted...

The former

Good, its hard to tell. Ive had to explain this to middle aged idiots before.

---

TC may be trolling but he raises some good points

Thatguyonthebus posted...

TC may be trolling but he raises some good points

that we desperately need to be significantly harsher on trolls? both here and on twitter? yes, please.

---

There is some worry about platforms solidifying themselves as the only option and using such tactics to silence views they don't like. This is categorically not the case with Trump and those inciting violence, but we shouldn't implicitly trust the companies not to use this as a convenient springboard. We definitely need more competition that can hopefully grow a broad audience rather than becoming right-wing echochambers like the big names in the news currently.

Remember when a court ruled that Trump couldn't block people because he's a public figure and twitter's considered a public forum? That's not okay, but banning people from a public forum, even public figures, is okay.

well when that public figure uses the platform to incite acts of domestic terrorism you kinda have an obligation.

---

Rhylos posted...

Remember when a court ruled that Trump couldn't block people because he's a public figure and twitter's considered a public forum? That's not okay, but banning people from a public forum, even public figures, is okay.

lmao his administration declared that his tweets were official presidential statements so he wasnt allowed to prevent people from reading them, stop spreading disinformation

---

King_Hutton posted...

lmao his administration declared that his tweets were official presidential statements so he wasnt allowed to prevent people from reading them, stop spreading disinformation

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/09/federal-appeals-court-rules-donald-trump-cant-block-people-twitter/1682321001/

Maybe do more reading before sharing this sort of opinion with others.

---

i guess twitter missed the video he posted where he very strongly condemned the protest

Rhylos posted...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/09/federal-appeals-court-rules-donald-trump-cant-block-people-twitter/1682321001/

You didnt read that, did you?

---

Rhylos posted...

Remember when a court ruled that Trump couldn't block people because he's a public figure and twitter's considered a public forum? That's not okay, but banning people from a public forum, even public figures, is okay.

When did they say Twitter is considered a public forum?

---

Public company usually means government-owned

---

Hop103 posted...

Muh private business is no excuse in their case, they are a platform not a publisher like say the NYT or the WSJ.

the NYT and WSJ are also platforms

---

Anybody who is happy with "Twitter can ban anybody they want" as a perspective better understand that "Twitter can ban anybody they want".

It's fine if those are the rules, but you cannot be shocked or offended if they come for somebody you like or for reasons you think are dumb.

I'm not passing judgement on it, just pointing out that it is very unlikely people with such power over the public discourse will wield it 100% in the way you want.

But today they are our friends so "yay", I suppose...

---

A public business means owned by the government. So...
---

Smackems posted...

Just make your own platform

But they'll shut that down too

Yes, if the platform you use is a sounding board for advocating the storming of the Capitol for the purposes of a violent coup to install a fascist dictator, you might be shut down. Short of that happening, you have little to worry about. Voat is still up, 4 chan is still up, etc. It's not our fault that every single right wing space inevitably turns into a hateful criminal hellhole.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's fine if those are the rules, but you cannot be shocked or offended if they come for somebody you like or for reasons you think are dumb.

They already do!

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

Publicly traded is still privately owned.

would have took TC 2 minutes to find this out if he wasnt too stupid to look.

---

BakonBitz posted...

A public business means owned by the government. So...

I thought it meant a company with shareholders?

legendary_zell posted...

Yes, if the platform you use is a sounding board for advocating the storming of the Capitol for the purposes of a violent coup to install a fascist dictator, you might be shut down. Short of that happening, you have little to worry about. Voat is still up, 4 chan is still up, etc. It's not our fault that every single right wing space inevitably turns into a hateful criminal hellhole.

Also, you should add that they're not being forced to shut down by any means, just the two biggest app stores don't wanna host their app because of the stuff you mentioned, which who can blame them?

---

Ruvan22 posted...

I thought it meant a company with shareholders?

thats when a company goes public. Basically opens itself to allowing other ppl part ownership through shares.
Public companies, think government-run hospitals, or the electric company

---

discodancer77 posted...

thats when a company goes public. Basically opens itself to allowing other ppl part ownership through shares.
Public companies, think government-run hospitals, or the electric company

So then Twitter is *not* a public company?

TheHoldSteady posted...

Playing devils advocate here but I keep seeing this on Reddit and it drives me bananas considering Twitter Inc is a publicly traded company >_>

publicly traded =\= publicly owned

enjoy your banana split @TheHoldSteady

---

Fwiw, unbridled free speech was never really permitted.

You can't, for example, walk around an office building telling everyone there's a fire or that there's an armed gunman when there isn't.

What we have here is a president who abused his position to convince people of something that he's repeatedly failed to prove at every level of the justice system.

In this case, twitter is more than justified in banning him from their platform. That shouldn't even be up for debate. Had Donald Trump successfully won some of this suits about election fraud, it'd be different.

---

CADE FOSTER posted...

I think that's not untrue, but at the same time free speech is more than just the First Amendment.

I hate to be the devil's advocate about this because I really hate what Trump supporters are doing right now, but people's lives getting ruined is not a good thing, even if they brought it upon themselves and deserve it. Rehabilitation is better than punishment.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think that's not untrue, but at the same time free speech is more than just the First Amendment.

I hate to be the devil's advocate about this because I really hate what Trump supporters are doing right now, but people's lives getting ruined is not a good thing, even if they brought it upon themselves and deserve it. Rehabilitation is better than punishment.

Al How would you define free speech then?
B) Whose life was ruined that you feel could have been rehabilitated?

Ruvan22 posted...

Al How would you define free speech then?
B) Whose life was ruined that you feel could have been rehabilitated?

Free speech often refers to the ideal of free speech "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is not just talking about not jailing people. It's about allowing people you fundamentally disagree with to still be heard.

And you can get through to people even further gone than Trump supporters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw

---

twitter isn't the us government

---