a reply to: daskakik
So this is inaccurate "So what are you doing if not questioning my views?" because that wasn't me.
You and I are discussing our views in a thread based on the OP. Please stop trying to confuse the situation. It is disingenuous and dishonest.
And calling the use of that tactic revenge or defense can be influenced by bias.
Whether or not Twitter is doing something that upsets people is not something that can be influenced by bias. They either are continuing to offend
people through a specific agenda or they aren't. Now, one might consider their actions proper, but the fact that they are continuing is not open to
Defense can only occur when one is under assault. Revenge can occur in either case, but the possibility of defense calls, IMO, for the benefit of the
Moral relativism is a dangerous thing. Most people agree that murder is wrong, and it is against the law except in cases of self-defense. Using the
definition of defense, one can make an appropriate determination whether one was actually acting in self-defense, simply by asking the question: "Was
this person being attacked?" Moral relativism can come in, however, and say that the attacker was also in fear of his life and thus was justified in
instigating the attack (I have actually had people try to argue that point with me). Moral relativism can come in and say that an inconvenience is
just cause to invoke self defense (something like someone driving slow). Moral relativism can come in and say that is someone was simply having a bad
day, they may have felt like they were being attacked.
These are actually arguments that lawyers will attempt to use to defend someone when the case is strong against them.
However, moral relativism also opens the door to anarchy. If any excuse can be used to justify a crime, there is no such thing as a criminal act.
Anything can be justified and there is then no reason for law to exist. If I can shoot a random person on the street, and can justify it by saying I
was scared when there was no cause to be scared, I am legally allowed to commit murder on a whim.
When you sign a contract and oblige yourself to follow the rules, even if they company tells you that they can change on a whim, that is on you
and you know that going in.
In most cases, that is true. I tend to fall on the side of private property rights in most cases.
However, this is not a situation where Twitter simply changed the contract. Twitter is literally violating it's own rules. Those rules are that
Twitter will allow free speech within certain guidelines. Yet, it has regularly and consistently allowed violations of its posting rules when such
violations support a progressive agenda (allowing BLM to spew hateful rhetoric and broadcast illegal actions) while at the same time extending the
stated limitations on those rules when doing so allows the banning of conservative views.
ATS, in contrast, does not consider politics or political views when enforcing guidelines.
There are also legal limits on how rules may be changed. A house may be bought on contract with an adjustable interest rate, for example. Many
mortgages have a clause that allows for an adjustable rate. Typically, this adjustment is specified in relation to a widely accepted rate, such as the
Prime Mortgage rate. It is still legal, however, for a bank to state in the contract that they may adjust the rate without specifying how that rate
will be adjusted. Few if any do this, simply because it can and has lead to lawsuits over their legal right to enforce such an arbitrary arrangement.
However, it is still legally permissible... what is not legally permissible is to decide that the client will suddenly now pay 300% interest because
it says in the contract the bank can decide that.
Twitter has been granted legal protection from lawsuits based on the opinions of members being expressed on their forum, as has ATS. I support that
for an open forum. I do not support it, and the legislation backing this does not permit it, when said forum operates as a publisher. A newspaper may
not legally publish material that is slanderous for example; if they do they can be sued for slander. An open forum may contain a post that slanders
someone, because that forum is not charged with making legal decisions... the onus of liability is on the poster, not the forum (and since forums are
typically anonymous, that anonymity protects the poster). Twitter at present is covered under the "open forum" definition and thus is immune from
legal prosecution concerning the content of their site.
Twitter, however, through unequal and improper application of policy, as well as through actual violations of their own policies, uses their site to
present a hidden political agenda... hidden because it is not openly specified in their mission statement. At the same time, Twitter uses its monopoly
status to make it extremely difficult for anyone else to build a competing, effective platform. Indeed, there have been documented reports of Twitter,
Facebook, and Google conspiring to remove smaller platforms (Parler?) because they represented competition. This raises two legal challenges: Twitter
is acting as a publisher by arbitrarily removing posts that it disagrees with politically and therefore is no longer an "open forum"; Twitter has
established itself as a member of an oligarchy, which places it in the legal definition of a monopoly.
I recant this not because you don't know it already; you do. I recant it to re-establish the actual situation, as you tend to try to change the
conversation from the specific to the abstract whenever your position is indefensible.
Therefore, since the US government has reneged on its obligation to enforce its laws equitably, it becomes the duty of those who are adversely
affected by the actions of Twitter to take steps themselves to mitigate damages. That is different from a revenge motive; it falls under the heading
of defense as long as Twitter is using legal trickery to operate as a publisher without accepting such liability and taking steps to squelch other
As to Twitter's actions not being an "attack," it certainly is. The purpose of Twitter is to allow social networking and provide a forum for exchange
of information and opinion. Using it's size and monopoly status, Twitter's actions serve to unduly influence public perception of political decisions,
not by allowing public discourse, but by controlling public discourse. That allows politicians who would not normally have support sufficient to
implement political agendas to still implement them, and many of these political agendas are directly damaging to the financial, social, and sometimes
even the physical livelihood of citizens.
I repeat: if one is expected to simply "find somewhere else to post" when they disagree with Twitter's actions, Twitter and those who support it can
simply "find somewhere else to live" when they disagree with government actions against Twitter. That sword cuts in both directions.