> I'm confused by what you are saying here. Corporations have always been totalitarian in their decision making. How often have you heard from your boss "this isn't a democracy" when they make a decision that's unpopular among the employees?
I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants.
> The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free.
Yeah, and it’s good that people finally loosen up their radical stances and start to realize that the state isn’t the only source of oppression.
> I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants.
One thing to consider is that this argument is being used rhetorically to force interlocutors into an uncomfortable position. If you are a famous politician who has been championing the unrestricted free reign of corporations to pollute, abuse employees, abuse customers, etc. for decades, but now all of a sudden you're upset about certain decisions those companies make regarding their own products, people are going to throw that in your face.
The argument will continue to be made until those arguing for tighter controls over corporate free speech agree that corporate power in other areas must be checked as well. I'm all for greater oversight of Twitter that would lead to more free speech. But I'm not going to start arguing for it until there's a broader recognition that corporate power writ large needs to be reduced, not just at the corporations which make things politically uncomfortable for certain politicians.
To me, it seems like some politicians would like to pass laws against e.g. Twitter specifically that would help them politically, but they would like to preserve corporate power in general where it benefits them. They want corporations to be people when it benefits them, but they don't want corporations to be people when it's politically inconvenient.
That's not how this works. Until conservative attitudes about corporate power and corporate personhood shift generally, Twitter will retain the power they have now, since they are people according to conservatives.
It is my experience though. I don't really care if people can use Twitter/Facebook to write whatever they want in their own name (yes, even harassment and incitation to violence, as long as it is done under your real name). But I do use the 'but corps are people too!' argument because I know it triggers some people who don't like having their arguments used against them.
My radicals friend all do the same thing, one of them even participate to witch-hunt/deplatforming rally despite being morally against it, just to be able to say 'but isn't a corporation a moral person?'. Until this notion is broken (and if we could break Limited liability too...), i don't think anybody can legitimately argue against deplatforming.
So join with anarchist/trotskyist, ecosocialists and all the radical left against corporation as moral person, and you'll find a lot of allies for your freedom of speech fight.
I am saying that people who are seemingly opposed to that stuff are the first to shout that Twitter is a private company and thus can manipulate its userbase however it wants.
> The more interesting dynamic to me is the free-market, anti-regulation, low-corporate-tax capitalist politicians arguing we should create regulations to make the market less free.
Yeah, and it’s good that people finally loosen up their radical stances and start to realize that the state isn’t the only source of oppression.