- Dec 10, 2018
lol it's a twitter ban not the civil rights struggle of our times. Twitter is not the public square, it's a private website full of obnoxious people screeching pointlessly, and the courts forcing them to let Murphy back is like forcing somebody to bake a gay marriage cake or determine what pronouns you're to use under penalty of law.
First, Twitter is part of a SM oligarchy--a small group of mega-companies that buys out/snuffs out competition so that they are the only choice, or a controlled choice. It's not that different from the Carnegies/Rockefellers/Hearsts. It doesn't matter if you hate the platform, it's the most efficient and plausible way to communicate with users as Null did during the 8/5-8/6 outage. It's even more not an elective for journos/commentators like Murphy. Keep in mind that in the prior suit (Taylor v. Twitter), Twitter asserted that it, Twitter, could ban women or blacks off its platform as part of its 1A rights as its 1A rights were the only ones that mattered--as if its millions of users were just unpaid stringers at will. And that this SJW tightening mechanism started in earnest after mainstream blamed SM for getting Trump elected when they were all functioning without the restrictions now present. Twitter's not bold enough to ban the POTUS itself but those with POTUS-adjacent viewpoints, including from respected sites like the Federalist, have been banned because God forbid enough people vote for him again!
Second, this issue scales vertically. Domain registrars/ISPs/Cloudflare have all pulled sites under the same pressure Null faced during Christchurch and, with Deluxe, over this fucking JY legal letter. Like he said on Rekieta, where exactly do you go even if you are the .001 percent smart enough to build your own datacenter if no one connects to it? If the private model is all that, the backbone companies like L3 are mostly private, what's stopping them from enforcing any social code they want?