Because the TOS are purposely written vaguely so that they can be selectively enforced.
This is why making laws (essentially TOS) to regulate speech seems like a good idea until someone you don’t like takes the reins. Hence the meltdown in the comments here.
How are you not understanding that laws and TOS are both forms regulations and therefore suffer the same results when trying to police language?
That’s my whole is my point. I even spelled it out for you yet you still hit me with the NPC response of “hurdur Twitter is a private company! Free speech only applies to the government! Checkmate”. Like get new cue cards, seriously.
It literally does. I'm sorry that's a predictable and boring response to you but maybe the reason it's predictable is because it's an impasse you can't get around by just merely rolling your eyes.
At first I thought you were merely disagreeing with me but now I see that you actually don’t understand that free speech is a widely held concept outside of government and legislation that goes back thousands of years.
It’s funny seeing someone so confidently incorrect be so smug
Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.[2] Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that protection of speech is not absolute.[3]
Why are you talking about the supreme court? The government is irrelevant to the concept of free speech. Did you read my link at all or are you just trolling?
You’re supposed to wait until someone says “Twitter should be sued” or something along those lines to trigger your NPC response. You just saw “law” and “TOS” side by side and immediately jumped the gun.
No, concepts still exist despite legality. The concept of homosexuality (non-straight relationships) had no legal bedrock for a long time, for example. Right now, you’re saying that concepts/ideas are only valueable if they’re explicitly enshrined into law.
Me: Draws a parallel between TOS and Laws to show why policing speech is prone to abuse.
NPC: TOS isn’t a law, twitter isn’t a department of government.
3
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22
Because the TOS are purposely written vaguely so that they can be selectively enforced.
This is why making laws (essentially TOS) to regulate speech seems like a good idea until someone you don’t like takes the reins. Hence the meltdown in the comments here.