pleaseclap

@original_ish_name That accusation is so absurd and spiteful, it doesn't deserve the dignity of a rebuttal.

@original_ish_name I appreciate the use of the word "should" in your argument, because it telegraphs that you do understand your prescriptions are rooted in your feelings

@original_ish_name
You just upped the absurdity of your argument by several degrees: article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't abridged by a private website curating its content. For that matter, it's not a law that can be violated at all: the document self-identifies as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive"

@towerful @original_ish_name You'd think if all these "free speech enthusiasts" really believed that having a code of conduct was a violation of a constitutional guarantee, they would be applying their logic evenly to all of their hosts, including their employers

But they don't

They do understand the purpose and validity of a code of conduct on private property (such as a social media network): they know they're making a bad argument: the point isn't to make a good argument, it's to attack

@towerful @original_ish_name

I want to add: curating or moderating content anywhere that's not owned by the public is not a free speech issue

The first amendment is about what Congress can't do