16 ms·
In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government c
by realgeniushere 4y ago
In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.
- Eisenstein 4y agoTwitter is not the government.
- realgeniushere 4y agoWhat a low effort and low thought reply. No one said it is. I’m saying there’s a principled way to have free speech and still take down spam.
- Eisenstein 4y agoI'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?
- realgeniushere 4y agoMaybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?