One person's free speech is another's hate speech. That's the nub of the issue. However, Apple and Google are businesses and free to do as they wish with their ad dollars and app stores. That is, unless, you want the government to step into the morass of regulating them. If you don't like the way Twitter is going then you stop using it and go somewhere else like I did years ago. If you like what Musk is doing then ante up the bucks to turn it into a subscriber based revenue application.
I'm highly skeptical of the concept of "hate speech," as it's iterated (and litigated) today. It's essentially thought crime, and barring the exception of overt incitement, litigating it or censoring it (as in the government doing so) is anti-liberty.
I have a blanket opposition to government meddling in the affairs of private companies. That said, you may likely recall my "gray area" musings, where government protections and supports muddle up the "private" aspect of some entities, possibly conferring some aspect of "state sponsored" upon them. It's nuanced, and politicians really suck at nuance (because it doesn't sell to voters, for one thing), but that doesn't mean we should wave it all off.
To be clear, I'm all for the market settling this, I'm just calling out our hypocrites-in-charge.
Regarding the Play/App Store issue, Twitter has a very functional mobile website. One that doesn't endlessly nag you to install their app (ahem... looking at you Reddit).
Increasingly, I'm opposed to installing endless apps on my phone which do nothing for me that couldn't be done as easily in a web browser. They do one thing that a browser can't: scrape more of your information.
You're obviously close to my age, as those references, especially "Saddles" are aged! As Mel says, couldn't get that movie made today, and no shit! None of these dour virtue signalers today have a sense of humor. Well, I can wish a pox on their houses. Keep it up mi amigo, I appreciate it. "Somebody better go get a shitload of dimes!" at the LePetomaine thruway.. Hahahaha
It's one thing for a private company to decide on its own to censor speech. It's another for taxpayer funded government employees to "advise" these platforms on speech "the government" doesn't like. That crosses a bright line into propaganda, especially when it's done under the guise of "preventing misinformation" but is nothing more than blatant politicking in violation of the Hatch Act. The government should stay out of the information regulating business altogether, if not for the constitutional reason, certainly for the practical reason that attempts by the government to control speech inevitably elevates the very speech they try to suppress. This is the "beachball concept" that the harder you try to push a beachball under water, the more it pushes back to the surface. We're not so stupid we can't figure out what's true - but the media go along with this because it threatens their monopoly on "truth".
This government intertwining of various sorts - and it is intertwining more than simple government coercion - is what pushes these companies into the "state actor" category and, by extension, arguably undermines their arguments as to rights, liberties, and private-sector autonomy.
Benefiting from government suggests treatment as an extension of government.
One person's free speech is another's hate speech. That's the nub of the issue. However, Apple and Google are businesses and free to do as they wish with their ad dollars and app stores. That is, unless, you want the government to step into the morass of regulating them. If you don't like the way Twitter is going then you stop using it and go somewhere else like I did years ago. If you like what Musk is doing then ante up the bucks to turn it into a subscriber based revenue application.
I'm highly skeptical of the concept of "hate speech," as it's iterated (and litigated) today. It's essentially thought crime, and barring the exception of overt incitement, litigating it or censoring it (as in the government doing so) is anti-liberty.
I have a blanket opposition to government meddling in the affairs of private companies. That said, you may likely recall my "gray area" musings, where government protections and supports muddle up the "private" aspect of some entities, possibly conferring some aspect of "state sponsored" upon them. It's nuanced, and politicians really suck at nuance (because it doesn't sell to voters, for one thing), but that doesn't mean we should wave it all off.
To be clear, I'm all for the market settling this, I'm just calling out our hypocrites-in-charge.
Regarding the Play/App Store issue, Twitter has a very functional mobile website. One that doesn't endlessly nag you to install their app (ahem... looking at you Reddit).
Increasingly, I'm opposed to installing endless apps on my phone which do nothing for me that couldn't be done as easily in a web browser. They do one thing that a browser can't: scrape more of your information.
Caddyshack and Blazing Saddles! Fine work!
I live for pop culture references.
You're obviously close to my age, as those references, especially "Saddles" are aged! As Mel says, couldn't get that movie made today, and no shit! None of these dour virtue signalers today have a sense of humor. Well, I can wish a pox on their houses. Keep it up mi amigo, I appreciate it. "Somebody better go get a shitload of dimes!" at the LePetomaine thruway.. Hahahaha
“…rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists!!!”
I love that! I’m Methodist!
It's one thing for a private company to decide on its own to censor speech. It's another for taxpayer funded government employees to "advise" these platforms on speech "the government" doesn't like. That crosses a bright line into propaganda, especially when it's done under the guise of "preventing misinformation" but is nothing more than blatant politicking in violation of the Hatch Act. The government should stay out of the information regulating business altogether, if not for the constitutional reason, certainly for the practical reason that attempts by the government to control speech inevitably elevates the very speech they try to suppress. This is the "beachball concept" that the harder you try to push a beachball under water, the more it pushes back to the surface. We're not so stupid we can't figure out what's true - but the media go along with this because it threatens their monopoly on "truth".
This government intertwining of various sorts - and it is intertwining more than simple government coercion - is what pushes these companies into the "state actor" category and, by extension, arguably undermines their arguments as to rights, liberties, and private-sector autonomy.
Benefiting from government suggests treatment as an extension of government.