Read on Twitter
This is an important article warning against the dangers of both stripping 230 protections, and nationalizing TW/FB.
It also makes important arguments for the moral defense of private property (which Twitter is).
But @donswriting overlooks something very important (thread)
https://twitter.com/donswriting/status/1348002259049861125
It also makes important arguments for the moral defense of private property (which Twitter is).
But @donswriting overlooks something very important (thread)
https://twitter.com/donswriting/status/1348002259049861125
Both @donswriting & @yaronbrook seem to overlook the private property of social media users.
Social media is not strictly “free.”
The valuable consideration offered to SM co.s is user data—and that data is both private (to the user) and valuable...
Social media is not strictly “free.”
The valuable consideration offered to SM co.s is user data—and that data is both private (to the user) and valuable...
Users exchange access to that data for utilization of the SM platform.
Then users invest exorbitant amounts of time, effort, and money in order to grow their audiences on SM—all while allowing the SM co. to profit from their user data...
Then users invest exorbitant amounts of time, effort, and money in order to grow their audiences on SM—all while allowing the SM co. to profit from their user data...
Most users make good faith efforts to abide by the contract (or Terms of Service) which was agreed upon between the SM co. and themselves.
Any violation of those TOS should naturally be seen as a breach of contract, and easily in limited / termination or access...
Any violation of those TOS should naturally be seen as a breach of contract, and easily in limited / termination or access...
But just as with EVERY OTHER contractual relationship, there must be an objective way to understand & abide by the TOS—such that a reasonable reading results in the ability to objectively predict the outcomes...
And this is where @donswriting, @yaronbrook, @GSalmieri, etc.. have been shockingly silent (to my knowledge).
They’ve spoken as if there is no private property concerns on the line for the users, & as if there is no need for objectively predictable behavior by SM co.s to users..
They’ve spoken as if there is no private property concerns on the line for the users, & as if there is no need for objectively predictable behavior by SM co.s to users..
@donswriting does advise against the inconsistency of SM co.s,
but he doesn’t appear to see this as a violation of the agreement between the co.s & their users.
I wonder if he, Brook, Salmieri, etc... would openly defend that position...
but he doesn’t appear to see this as a violation of the agreement between the co.s & their users.
I wonder if he, Brook, Salmieri, etc... would openly defend that position...
It seems abundantly clear that there is NO way a reasonable reading of the TOS could objectively predict the banning & restricting activities SM co.s have engaged in against their users...
This becomes all the more obvious when one considers the monstrous inconsistency which has been blatantly put on display.
Consider the diff between Kamala Harris’ comments about BLM riots & Trump’s comments prior to the Capitol riot:
Consider the diff between Kamala Harris’ comments about BLM riots & Trump’s comments prior to the Capitol riot:
Harris said that the protests (which had consistently become violent riots over and over again) *should continue*.
This did not result in ANY penalizing action by SM co.s.
Based on this, how could any reasonable person predict that Trump’s comments would result in a ban?
This did not result in ANY penalizing action by SM co.s.
Based on this, how could any reasonable person predict that Trump’s comments would result in a ban?
I fully assert that SM co.s can have WHATEVER TOS they want. They could even have a total ban on all Republicans or all Democrats.
But the TOS MUST be clear, and the application of them must be objectively predictable by a reasonable reading of them...
But the TOS MUST be clear, and the application of them must be objectively predictable by a reasonable reading of them...
This has clearly not been the case.
And so long as SM co.a continue down this path, they are trampling over the private property rights of the users—which constitutes a real initiation of force against the users...
And so long as SM co.a continue down this path, they are trampling over the private property rights of the users—which constitutes a real initiation of force against the users...
If my assessment above is accurate, then @donswriting, @yaronbrook, etc.. would be wise to begin pointing it out and calling for objective & legal means of protecting user rights against such violations.
Otherwise, there will be very subjective & illegal corrections.
Otherwise, there will be very subjective & illegal corrections.
