I really like that idea. You don't have a private account once elected to any office, even dogcatcher. The office (like the White House) can release statements, but not with your face and voice in it, and not retweeting random bullshit, etc, etc. Once you term out, you can fire up personal social media accounts again. I mean... did we ever have presidents running their own radio or TV frequencies while in office? It's not dissimilar to letting them spew all day on Twitter or similar.
So you are literally saying businesses and platforms have no right to "terms of service"? I don't see how your position escapes that, but it's a ludicrous culdesac.
I am not advocating there be no consequences, in the case of the President there is impeachment and the 25th Amendment. In other cases there are laws. I think the stronger argument is to compare Twitter to the media sources that choose what to cover.
grifters like Allie know that a big trumpet draw is finding a way to make them out to be aggrieved.... ....in this case, days after an attempt to violently overthrow democracy for their reality tv host
I'm sorry I'm slow on the uptake. You and I can have terms of service for something like Twitter, but a President, (and a senator, a mayor?) automatically get a pass on terms of service, because there are government mechanisms, that when working properly, can discipline them. Is that what you think is workable? You get elected and get to waive private terms of service for certain businesses? I am advocating almost the direct opposite of that. LOL.
I am happy with Trump being banned right now, just saying there are broader legal and ethical questions around it - where does it start, where does it end...
I don’t have a strong opinion, I am saying that 5-6 years ago I heard from scholars and social scientists and legal experts that platforms like Facebook and Twitter had crossed over into de facto public forums and utilities and that the providers had greater responsibilities than other business owners and that free speech should be an absolute on these public forums.... now I am seeing people’s opinions on the issue completely flip over politics. Deciding something on one case, setting precedence also can cause bad law. There are larger considerations at work.
Ineffective remedies as we have seen. Nevertheless... Twitter and all other social media have bent over backward to allow Trump to violate their ToS. The gov (in specific the POTUS and many other world leaders) get special treatment from Twitter/FB/... over normal US citizens. "World Leader" privileges if you will. Do you think that they should continue to get special privileges? That ToS shouldn't apply to them? Or that ToS should even exists?
I completely agree with that. It is literally impossible, by observation or algorithm, to perfectly police a worldwide, popular social media platform and exercise some sensibly consistent set of rules. One thing I've considered is that once you have some number X of followers, rules get much tighter. You could probably really keep an eye on all accounts that had -- I dunno, just spitballing -- 100,000 or more followers? Anyone who has a decent-sized town worth of people following them? It would still allow nutballs to use your platform to plan attacks, etc, though. Not sure there's a perfect solution.
The argument that I heard and was embraced by some on the left and also many libertarians was that there should be no terms of service that limit free speech based on the size of the platforms.
Especially since the reasoning Twitter used ultimately to ban him was fairly speculative and “contextual”. That creates quite a gray area. It’s fair for users to raise concerns over it. Even as a private business, I don’t think it’s OK for them to arbitrarily apply rules based on political preferences, which is what operating in a gray zone allows them to do.
So, it should be like Parler? That sounds like a total disaster, precisely because of the size of their platform.
Apple just fired a warning shot over the bow of Parler, because they don't ban enough. We aren't going down a path of concern here, imso. The generations born on iPhones and social media apps will look back at us elders squawking over when social media can ban and not, and laugh. It will be so embedded in their upbringing, that to whine about a ban or suspension on social media will be the same as whining to the principal about detention at school. really, when someone gets banned here, 95% of us don't squawk about it. There's a very loud (very small minority) who does on every social media platform ... doesn't mean we need to adjust our lives to fit them screaming (erroneously) about "my rights." probably 99.9% of it is just whining ... like whining about detention at school
I like that suggestion a lot. With more power comes more responsibility should be codified in their terms of service.
What is the difference between someone getting banned on Twitter and someone getting banned on Clutchfans? The ban hammer is not unique to Twitter.
come on, that's like saying streaming video of insurrrection should be outlawed, when it is proving (right now) to be a golden honeypot solution to capture. we want nutballs to plan over social media in the open ... no? right? it is very, very dangerous for us to throw out scenarios and feel like we have to have a public discussion over perfect solutions ... sigh I think ALL discussion from the public about policing social media is more dangerous than any problems we conceive and discusss and try to solve, because we're bored and want our opinions heard and to feel special that we played a role in shaping ('er, policing) social media networks. and your example there is just really not a worry whatsoever. As I posted to ATW, which I'll edit a bit to your scenario: and let's not bring up wild scenarios of terrorists on the international watch list organizing on twitter. **** would be a great Honeypot for capture. That's why on all TV shows, the terrorists communicate through videogame chats and burnners, etc. It's not a problem if it never happens, or if it aids hunting them down. [edit] actual "nutball" planning will move to encrypted channels now and burners. I mean, if Baltimore teenagers depicted by The Wire can figure it out ,,,. Now, as for Recruiting over social media or radio or TV as an Influencer or Populist ... that also comes with obfuscation....see KKK's recruiting methods. Blatant recruiting is again, a Honeypot for detection.
