*quote:
I don’t find anything more ridiculous than someone bringing up freedom of speech, democracy, and other “limited government” metaphors. Twitter and other platforms provide you with a type of amplifier, they are companies, not democratic countries. No EULA I’ve ever read resembled a bill of rights, but rather a list of restrictions. You willingly joined a benevolent dictatorship, get used to it. – Comment by Shannon Ehlers on March 15, 2008 @ 12:39 am
*/quote

I think you mean TOS and not EULA-but that aside, Constitutional law, even if you personally don’t agree with it, is what (should/must) govern(s) our society; therefore, even a TOS in violation of Constitutional law is illegal.

But despite this fact, my point is that “crying wolf” over a matter that does not break any law is contrary to the will of the people, as defined by the Constitution (which is designed, by the framers, to mold to the will of the people, and not vice-versa, by the way).
Using the “block” feature is the appropriate action-that’s what it is there for, as is not choosing to follow, as is protecting updates…

Asking to have someone removed from society (or a community) because you find their LEGAL content/expression to be unsatisfactory, crude, moronic, or any otherwise offensive to you personally, is to disable the societal system (government inc.) which allows our society to exists, democratically; and with ever-increasing advancement. (And also to disable any portion of that society, such as an online community.)

Keep in mind, “Painters and poets come to America, skateboarders and sculptors choose to make this their home. For them, self expression is the motivator.”

Now, who said that? I believe, if I read your blog right, Shannon, that you put this in the context of a good thing, yes? So, tell me, why would we choose to stymie that self-expression and motivation? Science, technology, medicine, law, and, ultimately, peaceable existence (or any existence at all) mandates that we do not.

That is why constitutionality and other government “stuff” applies in this situation…

I typically would not have gone to view the “breasts of twitter” had it not been for the controversy (child-rearing 101 applies even to adults: don’t give undue attention to outbursts and other non-favorable action/activity. Reward with attention only that which is positive).

I can see all the breasts right up close I care to see (damn it’s good to be me). However, I don’t want anyone telling me I can’t choose to view someone’s content/expression if I decide I want to, unless that content/expression breaks the law, thank you very much for not interfering with my constitutional rights.

Similarly, this goes double for religious zealots that spew “end of the world” fear propaganda in order to convince simple minds to follow and obey their wishes, typically for monetary gain! Don’t get me started on the Haggard’s, Robertson’s and Falwell’s (rip ty lord, glad I’m not his “soul”) out there…damn hate mongers trying to ruin the word of the Almighty power, the will of the common person, and the advancement of life…anyway…

I’m so tired of hearing Christians (not all, only those that do) state that the world is going to end on X day I can’t even hardly stand it. Folks, the world is not going to end. Get used to it. Just maybe we need to collectively convince ourselves the world isn’t actually about to end (which it isn’t1) and work together, using doctrines like the Constitution/Constitutional law, to make it a place worth living in, for all, united, together, as humans being kind, gentle, courteous, artistic, expressive and, most of all, peaceable.

1: http://qntm.org/?destroy – Things of Interest, a production of Sam Hughes.
http://jesseloop.blogspot.com

*quote:
I don’t find anything more ridiculous than someone bringing up freedom of speech, democracy, and other “limited government” metaphors. Twitter and other platforms provide you with a type of amplifier, they are companies, not democratic countries. No EULA I’ve ever read resembled a bill of rights, but rather a list of restrictions. You willingly joined a benevolent dictatorship, get used to it. – Comment by Shannon Ehlers on March 15, 2008 @ 12:39 am
*/quote

I think you mean TOS and not EULA-but that aside, Constitutional law, even if you personally don’t agree with it, is what (should/must) govern(s) our society; therefore, even a TOS in violation of Constitutional law is illegal.

But despite this fact, my point is that “crying wolf” over a matter that does not break any law is contrary to the will of the people, as defined by the Constitution (which is designed, by the framers, to mold to the will of the people, and not vice-versa, by the way).
Using the “block” feature is the appropriate action-that’s what it is there for, as is not choosing to follow, as is protecting updates…

Asking to have someone removed from society (or a community) because you find their LEGAL content/expression to be unsatisfactory, crude, moronic, or any otherwise offensive to you personally, is to disable the societal system (government inc.) which allows our society to exists, democratically; and with ever-increasing advancement. (And also to disable any portion of that society, such as an online community.)

Keep in mind, “Painters and poets come to America, skateboarders and sculptors choose to make this their home. For them, self expression is the motivator.”

Now, who said that? I believe, if I read your blog right, Shannon, that you put this in the context of a good thing, yes? So, tell me, why would we choose to stymie that self-expression and motivation? Science, technology, medicine, law, and, ultimately, peaceable existence (or any existence at all) mandates that we do not.

That is why constitutionality and other government “stuff” applies in this situation…

I typically would not have gone to view the “breasts of twitter” had it not been for the controversy (child-rearing 101 applies even to adults: don’t give undue attention to outbursts and other non-favorable action/activity. Reward with attention only that which is positive).

I can see all the breasts right up close I care to see (damn it’s good to be me). However, I don’t want anyone telling me I can’t choose to view someone’s content/expression if I decide I want to, unless that content/expression breaks the law, thank you very much for not interfering with my constitutional rights.

Similarly, this goes double for religious zealots that spew “end of the world” fear propaganda in order to convince simple minds to follow and obey their wishes, typically for monetary gain! Don’t get me started on the Haggard’s, Robertson’s and Falwell’s (rip ty lord, glad I’m not his “soul”) out there…damn hate mongers trying to ruin the word of the Almighty power, the will of the common person, and the advancement of life…anyway…

I’m so tired of hearing Christians (not all, only those that do) state that the world is going to end on X day I can’t even hardly stand it. Folks, the world is not going to end. Get used to it. Just maybe we need to collectively convince ourselves the world isn’t actually about to end (which it isn’t1) and work together, using doctrines like the Constitution/Constitutional law, to make it a place worth living in, for all, united, together, as humans being kind, gentle, courteous, artistic, expressive and, most of all, peaceable.

1: http://qntm.org/?destroy – Things of Interest, a production of Sam Hughes.
http://jesseloop.blogspot.com

On my profile, there is a link to the list of people following me. My avatar appears on the profiles of those who are following me. So “being followed” by this or that person/account can have an impact on my “image” on Twitter, so to say. Not a huge one, but still.

So, at the risk of having less followers than I could, I block (but I don’t block normal people who want to follow me, no fear).

On my profile, there is a link to the list of people following me. My avatar appears on the profiles of those who are following me. So “being followed” by this or that person/account can have an impact on my “image” on Twitter, so to say. Not a huge one, but still.

So, at the risk of having less followers than I could, I block (but I don’t block normal people who want to follow me, no fear).

*I might question the judgment of someone who repeatedly gets their account suspended, especially when they claim to understand this process reasonably well. This might be a sign that your brand of art needs a different gallery.

*I don’t find anything more ridiculous than someone bringing up freedom of speech, democracy, and other “limited government” metaphors. Twitter and other platforms provide you with a type of amplifier, they are companies, not democratic countries. No EULA I’ve ever read resembled a bill of rights, but rather a list of restrictions. You willingly joined a benevolent dictatorship, get used to it.

*Maybe the key here is to realize that Twitter and like organizations are trying to build large communities of users and to do that, they need to appeal to most people. If this means that a few people get mad, especially as a result of being banned/kicked/etc by many other users, then so be it.

*This reminds me of Howard Stern’s notorious battles with corporate radio. What he called his art was often little more than a way to disrupt people’s thought process with shocking behavior. While radio was interested in the large and loyal audience he drew, they had a larger mission to perform in the public interest (as mandated by the FCC). This art form was ultimately found not to be in the public interest and Howard found a new gallery for his art (satellite radio).

*No Supreme Court opinions, no code sections, just a simple question. Isn’t there a certain level to which we need not sink? I don’t mean that my own standards of decency are what everyone should follow. What I mean is that some common courtesies ought to be used when communicating in public forums, even if you consider that communication to be an artistic object. For the same reasons we don’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a movie theater, we need not create shocking innuendo in the name of art on forums such as this. If that cramps your artistic expression, then perhaps a different forum, more specific to the particulars of your art form, is in order.

*I might question the judgment of someone who repeatedly gets their account suspended, especially when they claim to understand this process reasonably well. This might be a sign that your brand of art needs a different gallery.

*I don’t find anything more ridiculous than someone bringing up freedom of speech, democracy, and other “limited government” metaphors. Twitter and other platforms provide you with a type of amplifier, they are companies, not democratic countries. No EULA I’ve ever read resembled a bill of rights, but rather a list of restrictions. You willingly joined a benevolent dictatorship, get used to it.

*Maybe the key here is to realize that Twitter and like organizations are trying to build large communities of users and to do that, they need to appeal to most people. If this means that a few people get mad, especially as a result of being banned/kicked/etc by many other users, then so be it.

*This reminds me of Howard Stern’s notorious battles with corporate radio. What he called his art was often little more than a way to disrupt people’s thought process with shocking behavior. While radio was interested in the large and loyal audience he drew, they had a larger mission to perform in the public interest (as mandated by the FCC). This art form was ultimately found not to be in the public interest and Howard found a new gallery for his art (satellite radio).

*No Supreme Court opinions, no code sections, just a simple question. Isn’t there a certain level to which we need not sink? I don’t mean that my own standards of decency are what everyone should follow. What I mean is that some common courtesies ought to be used when communicating in public forums, even if you consider that communication to be an artistic object. For the same reasons we don’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a movie theater, we need not create shocking innuendo in the name of art on forums such as this. If that cramps your artistic expression, then perhaps a different forum, more specific to the particulars of your art form, is in order.

Thanks for taking the time to write this piece and to incorporate the response from Biz Stone. It’s interesting to learn of people pushing the usage of Twitter in different ways. I don’t follow FB (and don’t see myself doing so) so it was good to be exposed to what was going on. It’s also interesting to learn about how the folks at Twitter look for signs of spam. They have a tough challenge since the spammers out there are always looking for new ways to manipulate systems to spread their messages.

Thanks,
Dan