The first amendment doesn’t come in because it’s not the government (“Congress shall make no law…”) doing the banning and censoring.
Mods here have the right to ban people here for the same reason that I get to say which political signs go in my front yard, or the editor of a newspaper gets to decide which letters to the editor get printed.
Free speech and competition in the free market of ideas operates between platforms as well as within them, and part of the value-add of a platform is their ability to curate out the garbage. If they moderate with too heavy a hand…. People wilo start getting their information from other platforms, and the hopelessly biased will find themselves with a dwindling membership enjoying their echo chamber.
So you were ok with pre Elon Twitter when facts were concealed about the vax? And people who supported Trump were blocked out? When you only allow what you want to hear, what you hear is a echo chamber, what's the difference? One more example I will add, am I wrong to believe there is no white hats , no calvery is coming to save us, if so why would they allow 85000 children to go missing? Do the white hats have them all on a island in Alaska? I doubt it. Censorship is not the American way.
OK with pre-Elon Twitter? Sure, why not? Any time I thought there was more to the story I’d check out somewhere else (which is why I’m here, and a bunch of other places too). So I got to hear what the people who hung out there thought, and I got to hear what people who thought otherwise were saying.
If anyone told me that I could only read pre-Elon Twitter (or post-Elon Twitter for that matter, or the NYT and Al Jazeera) that would be seriously bad…. But the first amendment protects me from such abuse.
You can argue that platforms curating content is a bad thing and they shouldn’t do it, but the first amendment will neither help you nor hurt you in that argument.
The first amendment doesn’t come in because it’s not the government (“Congress shall make no law…”) doing the banning and censoring.
Mods here have the right to ban people here for the same reason that I get to say which political signs go in my front yard, or the editor of a newspaper gets to decide which letters to the editor get printed.
Free speech and competition in the free market of ideas operates between platforms as well as within them, and part of the value-add of a platform is their ability to curate out the garbage. If they moderate with too heavy a hand…. People wilo start getting their information from other platforms, and the hopelessly biased will find themselves with a dwindling membership enjoying their echo chamber.
So you were ok with pre Elon Twitter when facts were concealed about the vax? And people who supported Trump were blocked out? When you only allow what you want to hear, what you hear is a echo chamber, what's the difference? One more example I will add, am I wrong to believe there is no white hats , no calvery is coming to save us, if so why would they allow 85000 children to go missing? Do the white hats have them all on a island in Alaska? I doubt it. Censorship is not the American way.
OK with pre-Elon Twitter? Sure, why not? Any time I thought there was more to the story I’d check out somewhere else (which is why I’m here, and a bunch of other places too). So I got to hear what the people who hung out there thought, and I got to hear what people who thought otherwise were saying.
If anyone told me that I could only read pre-Elon Twitter (or post-Elon Twitter for that matter, or the NYT and Al Jazeera) that would be seriously bad…. But the first amendment protects me from such abuse.
You can argue that platforms curating content is a bad thing and they shouldn’t do it, but the first amendment will neither help you nor hurt you in that argument.