Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog If they choose to get their information from only one source, then they are actively choosing to be deceived.
And that's their right, if that's what they want, but don't pretend they're victims for getting exactly what they're asking for.

@koherecoWatchdog So because the customers refuse to educate themselves, the business should have its rights trampled upon?

What kind of logic is that?

@koherecoWatchdog I don't know Reddit's explicit TOS language, but I know Twitter's says they can ban you for "any reason or no reason at all". I imagine Reddit's is similar.

If you don't like those rules, don't agree to them.

The especially funny thing about all these #advertisers pulling out of #Twitter is how easy of a decision that must have been.

#twitter #ads suuuck. Out of all the main platforms, they consistently performed the worst back when I was paying for ads.

It would be so easy to drop them and lose that expense with the shitty ROI.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/11/03/gm-audi-pfizer-pull-ads-from-twitter-after-musk-sale-here-are-the-other-companies-rethinking-their-ties/?sh=ee5d6e071003

@koherecoWatchdog And just like the open letters of yesteryear, if you want to use other people's property to amplify your message, you have to play by their rules. Whether it's a newspaper or a social media company.

Nobody has any more right to force social media to host their speech than they do to force a newspaper to run their letter.

@koherecoWatchdog They're only as accountable as their customers choose to hold them. That's free choice.

@koherecoWatchdog Of course. Rights have to be balanced. Free speech principles, taken absolutely, also conflict with civil rights.

I have to have a right to be able to shut you up on my property and get some peace if I want to. That's freedom of association, which is a free speech principle.

You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to force anyone to listen.

@koherecoWatchdog See there? I said nothing about law.
I agree with that system on a philosophical sense, because it's all based on free choice.

@koherecoWatchdog It's really no different. Your impact is determined by the size of your audience and an audience takes effort to build, both in person and online. You can't just sign up for an account and magic up thousands of followers any more than you can magic up thousands of signatures on a petition.

@koherecoWatchdog Great! If you want to do that and access that microblog platform's audience, then all you have to do is agree to play by their rules. Free marketplace of ideas in action.

@koherecoWatchdog No, I didn't.

@koherecoWatchdog They don't "trump" free speech.

Your rights can be voluntarily waived. When you sign the TOS and visit a social media site, you voluntarily agree to some limits on your speech while you remain on that platform's property.
That's a choice the user makes, in order to access the benefits of the service.
As long as everyone is free to make that choice for themselves, I have zero problems with it.

@koherecoWatchdog I agree with your last sentence. Where I disagree is who bears responsibility for that. The public is responsible for becoming informed.
People using Facebook uninformed about what that involves are like Elon buying Twitter and waiving due diligence.
It's not Facebook's fault that they haven't done the work to become informed.

@koherecoWatchdog ...which is why we have open letters.

@koherecoWatchdog The two are not so separate as you seem to think.

@koherecoWatchdog The whole point of a petition is collective action. If you're the only one getting signatures, you've already failed.