Bio not provided
@mdyoder @ginidietrich No business owes you anything. Nor do you owe any business to do business with them. Businesses go out of business all the time because they make bad decisions. Happens daily.
If Twitter screws up they are no different than any other business. Is is bad business for Twitter to do what it did? Maybe. But that is THEIR decision. Your decision is whether you will continue to use your product.
Get elected to the Twitter Board of Directors and then you can make their business decisions for them. Short of that... you have a vote... vote with how you give them business or don't. Not a tough concept.
10 months, 3 weeks ago on Reporter’s Twitter Account Suspended for Critiquing Olympics Coverage
@ginidietrich Its not a First Amendment issue. That is reserved for government censorship. This is a private entity. One thing that annoys me (I am a lawyer) is when people confuse First Amendment issues with non-government action.
There is "censorship" every day, everywhere you look and there is nothing wrong with it at all, legally.
Look, it is no different than a newspaper, say the NY Times, being more favorable to its advertisers if they wish. Why? Because they are a private media entity. They can cover whatever news they want to cover or not cover stuff they don't want to cover. They can erase comments on their website. They can "censor" as they see fit.
Twitter is no different. People seem to assume that social media companies are some sort of quasi-public interest entities. They simply aren't. Like any company (or any private individual), they are pretty much free to do what they want.
You don't like how they conducted their business. That's fine. You have a few recourses: (1) complain. Which you have done in this post and (2) stop using their service. Free markets work when people vote with their feet. But they owe you absolutely nothing. Nadda. They don't work for you. Nor do you elect their Board of Directors. They are no different than Wal-Mart or American Airlines. They are a private business that can set their own rules (within some legal limits) and then enforce them or ignore them as they see fit.
Similarly, I don't use google search anymore, because I disagree with how they conduct their business now. But does Google "owe it to the world" to run their search like we would want? Of course not. They run it as their own business.
@ginidietrich They don't need to apply to everyone equally. Twitter is a private company. They are free to do with their business as they wish. And the people that don't agree with how they do their line of business are free to.... stop using them.
Of course they give preference to a corporate sponsor. That's business. Makes total sense and frankly, they'd be moronic for not figuring out ways to promote their sponsors' interests. That's one way they make money, as a business.
Its a free market. People are free to stop using Twitter if they don't like how they are running their business. Twitter is not a public service. It isn't run by government. It isn't a non-profit. It isn't in the business of being "fair" or "reasonable." Its in the business of business, which is about making money.
If they end up losing money because of some practice they engage in (this one or others) because people stop using their service or because sponsors stop paying them money, they are likely to change their practices. But for people to think that Twitter, or Facebook, or LinkedIn or Reddit or any other private business "owes us" something about how they operate is simply a misguided way of looking at how free markets and business works.
@ginidietrich Why is that bad? If I owned a publishing outlet (and I do -- I own my blog) I very well censor things. If I an working with a sponsor on a project, I never would let a competitor hijack the comments on a post. Twitter is a business -- NOT a public good. If they want to do things they think will maximize their earnings, they are well within their rights to. And what people can do if they don't like it is... stop using them.
So what? Twitter is a private company. No one has a right to have anything broadcast on Twitter (or Facebook or LinkedIn or any other social media outlet). People can vote with their feet -- in this case, by not using the service. But as to what Twitter can do within their rights... they can "censor" any content they want.
Doesn't bug me in the least. They are a private, non-governmental entity. They are free to allow any members they want. To take it to the other side -- would you support someone coming in and making the Junior League accept men? Or any of the other hundreds of organizations that are female-only (like healthy clubs, as cited by someone earlier) or Latino-only or African-American-only or whatever.
1 year, 2 months ago on Augusta National Faces Scrutiny on “No Women” Rule