Apple puts their own money into creating, hosting, and curating the iOS App Store. If they don't want Twitter using that investment, I have no problem with that. It's Apple's platform and megaphone and if they don't want to enable hate speech through that, good for them.
Of course anyone can sue anyone for anything. I was responding to the frequently repeated misinformation that yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example of speech that is NOT legally protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
I’m no Bezos fan but come on, the washington post has editorial independence, Bezos isnt sitting in the newsroom randomly firing people and printing his own tantrums as headlines
Uhh yeah, that is the assumption. Otherwise, it's a useless mechanism to discuss and probe the concept of free speech. If you want to discuss a scenario involving an actual fire, ok. It's acceptable to tell everyone there's a fire if the theater is actually on fire. Anything to add to this utterly fascinating thought experiment you've come up with?
Careful. When some of us here pointed that out yesterday, the liberal users started to call us pedophiles and say we would only know that cause we search it out.
WaPo is a liberal rag, whether he is the puppeteer or not.
Very true. People who encourage/support censorship usually encourage murdering people.
Reddit is an absolute crap show. Moderation is weak at best, they do do it, but usually when your comment doesn't agree with the vast majority. You will be down voted and they removed. Doesn't matter what sub you are in.Reddit has a content moderation policy that they enforce. Doesn't mean stuff doesn't get through, but that's very different from "we're going to open Twitter up so that you can say almost anything, as long as it isn't violent." Reddit has notoriously banned many subreddits.
Controversial Reddit communities - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No you've missed the point. The problem is that people like you will stand in a burning theater and as long as the theater owner tells you that there is no fire, you'll believe that. The theater owner will then ban the people who are yelling fire, and you will voluntarily help attack them on the theater's behalf, free of charge.Uhh yeah, that is the assumption. Otherwise, it's a useless mechanism to discuss and probe the concept of free speech. If you want to discuss a scenario involving an actual fire, ok. It's acceptable to tell everyone there's a fire if the theater is actually on fire. Anything to add to this utterly fascinating thought experiment you've come up with?
Yep, democrats. Seeing as the republicans ended slavery.
True. Say a man is a woman? Banned. Say white people are bad? 10000 upvotes. That’s Reddit for you
What he says and what he does are 2 different things.
www.bloomberg.com
Not to mention I'm sure there are actually a lot of people out there who would rather Bezos not own Wapo.
Impressive, I'm pretty sure that's the equivalent of setting an Olympic record for long jump.
Sounds like you have a problem with speech when doesn't agree with your own. Upvotes and downvotes are speech on Reddit.
www.washingtonpost.com
It might behoove you to learn the rest of this country's history. You know, the stuff that's happened since 1865.
Oh my bad, you're right!Opinion | Elon Musk is harming free expression on Twitter, not protecting it
Those who believe in free expression on Twitter should be fighting for clear and consistent policies along with transparent enforcement.
What ever do you mean? This editorial board piece just screams impartial
