Ken White
Government has no business either forcing a site to platform Nick Fuentes or forcing them to ban him. The decision of whether to have Nick Fuentes on your site is an exercise of First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association. It can be a very clear statement of values.
Jan 24, 2023 at 3:47pmWeb
Show threadchemiclordJan 24, 2023

@Popehat It's really just a difference of definitions. For example, when a reactionary says, "Right to Speech," what they mean is "Right to an Audience."

When they say "Freedom of Speech," what they mean is "Freedom from Consequences."

Show threadPeterD 🇩🇪 🇨🇦Jan 29, 2023
@chemiclord @Popehat YES - freedom from the consequences of "yelling #Fire in a crowded theatre". Freedom of speech is a responsibility not a right.
Show threadPeat BogJan 24, 2023

@Popehat
I think there's broad agreement on your point: platforms set and enforce TOS, not government.

The sticky part comes in when we notice everybody is forced to chit-chat on the same platform. There's probably a short-hand word for that phenomenon.

Show threadKen WhiteJan 24, 2023
@peatbog Who is forced, and how?
Show threadPeat BogJan 24, 2023
@Popehat
Not forced by law but simply because all the people you want to chat with are on a particular platform and the effort involved in getting everyone to move somewhere else is overwhelming.
Show threadMike MerrittJan 25, 2023
@peatbog Lots of people didn't find it too problematic in the end to leave Twitter for Mastodon and other networks.
Show threadPeat BogJan 25, 2023

@mikewmerritt
I see lots of Twitter haters on Twitter due to the big network they have over there.

I've been watching several MDs and public health people make a go at Mastodon only to return to Twitter in spite of antivax abuse due to better engagement.

Same thing with Facebook. I don't know anyone who likes it but people use it for their running club or to check on pappy and meemaw or the neighborhood watch.

Show threadMike MerrittJan 26, 2023
@peatbog I'll concede that if your livelihood depends on it, it may be difficult to leave.
Show threadPeat BogJan 26, 2023

@mikewmerritt @Popehat
I don't think the problem is money but a network effect.

Analogy: individuals walking down an ally choose where to wander until a crowd forms with a density above a certain threshold. Then the individuals become a fluid with its own dynamics.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-fluid-dynamics-can-teach-us-about-navigating-crowds-180961823/

A Twitter user with an engaged following above a certain threshold will experience an emergent state analogous to a dense crowd: a community. Most humans can’t easily leave communities.

How Fluid Dynamics Can Help You Navigate Crowds

If you plan to be in a seething mass of humans at some point—whether it’s an inauguration or protest thereof—here's how to keep yourself safe

Smithsonian Magazine
Show threadRichard KepplerJan 24, 2023
@Popehat straw man. Government did neither.
Show threadKen WhiteJan 24, 2023
@RichardKeppler Two states passed laws purporting to govern when social media sites can ban people, and the resulting cases are likely to show up in front of SCOTUS. And there's constant chatter from Congress on requiring social media to ban more stuff.
Show threadcohomology is FUN!Jan 24, 2023
@RichardKeppler @Popehat state governments in Texas and Florida are trying.
Show threadRichard KepplerJan 24, 2023
@cohomologyisFUN @Popehat My assumption was always that these were noisy PR stunts that didn’t have a prayer of being enforced. Particularly state laws.
With respect to ‘Twitter Files’ type stuff, yes Twitter was working in close consultation with FBI, CIA, NIH and Congressional officials. However without any ability by those agencies to force Twitter to do anything, that is just Twitter behaving in accordance with their own wishes.
Show threadcohomology is FUN!Jan 24, 2023

@RichardKeppler @Popehat I agree they are mostly PR stunts, but the Texas law was upheld by an appeals court. I hope (and @Popehat would know better than I) that the law will ultimately be struck down.

I agree with what you’re saying re Twitter files.

Show threadlessbarbJan 24, 2023
@Popehat it's a horrible turn of events when I have to champion Fuentes, AND got scooped up into the deep state fan club.
Show threadAlan Miller  🇺🇦Jan 24, 2023
@Popehat assuming this relates to the Texas and Florida laws and the Supreme Court, I look forward to the cases involving Google/YouTube deplatforming porn with political messages.
Show threadSteve AJan 24, 2023
@Popehat I agree with you only if Fuentes’s comments are not falsehoods or defamatory.
Show threadComputeforloot Jan 24, 2023
@sma1 @Popehat the first amendment was drafted to protect ALL speech from government interference , especially that which we don’t like! With the notable exception of threats of violence
Show threadMark TomczakJan 24, 2023

@sma1 @Popehat Section 230 made some clear protection for a site like Twitter choosing to allow Fuentes onto their service whether or not he makes false or defamatory statements.

If he makes defamatory statements, the legal remedy would be to sue Fuentes (and, I'd imagine, subpoena Twitter for their copies of the defamatory messages he sent via their service).

Show threadNina’s DNC Donut 🍩Jan 24, 2023
@Popehat 💯
Show threadComputeforloot Jan 24, 2023
@Popehat nailed it 🍺👍🏻
Show threadThomas PermuttJan 24, 2023
@Popehat Sure, but isn't there at least a little question about what "your" "site" means? The question of what speech you could disseminate on "your" telephone network was once an important one, but it now seems obvious that a telephone network is not a "site" as concerns content. And "sites" like - well, you know - owe much of their success to the illusion that they are wires for talking to each other rather than Somebody's "site."
Show threadInfamousUnknownJan 24, 2023

@Popehat What about the other side. For example could the government, ban a convicted criminal from using a specific site as part of probation / sentence?

Not forcing the site to do anything, just the user under threat of punishment?

Show threadShannonJan 24, 2023
@Popehat The government should not force anything... I agree. However, in deciding to platform people like him, Twitter is making a harmful choice to society as a whole. I don't see how it can be considered a source for any sort of news anymore.
Show threadRailleJan 24, 2023
@Popehat
It most certainly is a clear statement on Twitters values.
Values what values?
Show threadRhett DerrickJan 25, 2023
@Popehat he’s been suspended again.
Show threadTony LoroFeb 1, 2023
@Popehat so many politicians cannot tell the difference between a private company and something they wish they controlled
Show threadDarren TappFeb 3, 2023
@Popehat I agree, and I don’t know who Nick Fuentes is.