Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 449081843065683988
if u wanna use it u use it if not u dont have to
If you've got a patch of grass, right?
you don't have to go to a public forum either
but you have the right to do so
Twitter is not a public forum
is a private company
is a communication service
Twitter is a dictatorship
Government person A is speaking on that grass
we already went over this. a public forum, by the legal definition they are using, is not restricted to public land.
the company does whatever they want, period.
can u link me to that definition
because I dont think it talks about virtual worlds
But we've got a digital equivalent.
it talks about land
It doesn't specify land, I don't believe.
well not private one anyway
and twitter is private virtual "land"
Is there any history of moderation for public land? (And to what extent?)
The point is, there's no historical basis for his twitter account to be a public forum.
If twitter is a public forum then my living room is too
actually
but there is no denying social media is a common avenue for political discourse
I misinterpreted what it meant by 'traditional'.
"by tradition or practice"
What they're saying is that that particular type of spot has been used
So, street corners, check.
Public parks, check.
If someone generally allows it in their land, they can't suddenly change their mind while it's an active ground.
look, no company can block u from being in a park, but twitter can block u from being in twitter
thats the difference right there
But how does that translate to digital?
If the govt had a official twitter-like platform then it would be different
You have to look at it in a generic sense, or in specific history.
In practice, Twitter has been censorious.
page 13 on
It's not a good sign when the heading says *and its demise*
I've been linked a thesis, then? :/