(Replying to PARENT post)
The point isn’t that Twitter felt compelled. Isn’t the point that Twitter happily complied, and even made up reasons to censor the stuff they thought was the most damaging “in order to prevent another 2016”.
👤zaroth🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
picking apart semantics is not sufficient to allay concerns expressed in parent
👤laborcontract🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Yes, Twitter could sue, but users could also sue if they feel Twitter was colluding with and acting on behalf of the government, congresspeople, etc.
👤goodluckchuck🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
When an authority asks, they're not really asking, they're telling.
👤archsurface🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Okay well, this doesn't feel like a good faith discussion if we're resorting to technicalities like this.
You are correct, technically Joe Biden was not a part of the government at the time that this email was sent. Do you honestly believe that this behavior is keeping with the spirit of the first amendment?
His team, and the DNC (here's one that's very similar, except that its from the DNC instead of the Biden team https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjAuD6eWAAEFiXY.jpg)
are enormous and very powerful, and effectively a part of the government.
Do you think this kind of emailing Twitter and asking them to "handle" tweets they don't like, stopped on the day that Biden was inaugurated?
👤Dig1t🕑3y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.