I’m pretty sure I’m clearly better informed than you, dude.
Your analogies are just bad.
No, you are not “buying” anything. Certainly, you are giving Twitter value by your participation, but you are not guaranteed anything in return, beyond what is established in your usage agreement with them.
And guess what? That agreement does not, in any way, say that you “own your account”.
Your statements regarding this stuff is just entirely incorrect. It is factually inaccurate.
No, you tried to compare your usage of twitter to a painter’s work of art.
But the painter PAID for his canvas and paints. That’s why he owns them.
If he took YOUR canvas, and painted on it, he wouldn’t own it. You’d still own it.
You own exactly what is specified through the agreement you made with Facebook when you signed up. Nothing more.
If this is unacceptable to you, then you are free to not use their service.
You want to force them to assist white supremacists and nazis.
No one is preventing Nazis from speaking when Twitter bans them.
There are currently over one billion websites on the internet. They are not all owned by 5 media conglomerates.
At this point, trying to correct your woefully misinformed understanding of how intellectual property works seems like a fool’s errand. Suffice to say, all internet connected technology is not communally owned simply by virtue of using some elements of technology which were once developed by the government.
You do not have any rights to use twitter. Not sure how many times that needs to be stated before you understand it.
When you wrote this, did you believe that it was a compelling argument? Because I defy you to find even a single person on this forum who read it, which thought it was good.
I mean, it’s pretty obvious that ownership of property does not allow you to harm other people with said property. No one would suggest otherwise. This is a strawman argument.
But why do you keep saying this? No one is suggesting otherwise.
You are creating what is called a mott and bailey argument, switching back and forth between an easily defensible position (human rights should not be violated) and an indefensible position (my ability to use twitter should not be violated).
Use of twitter is not a human right. There is absolutely nothing which guarantees your usage of such a system. You would have to actually make a coherent argument suggesting that there is some inherent basis for you having a right to use twitter. But you have not done so.
But he could absolutely refuse to sell me a ticket.
I realize that you don’t really know anything about our legal system, but let me try to explain this to you again:
Your statement there, that he could sue you? That’s not true. That’s false.
In our legal system, there are certain, very specific, classifications of people which cannot be discriminated against. At a federal level, this includes things like race, gender, religion. It does not include beliefs in some generic sense. It does not include political affiliation. This is well established through existing legal precedents.
In SOME states, political affiliation is not a legal basis for discrimination for employment. In even fewer (I think 2?) states, it’s not a legal basis for discrimination for customers. Meaning, in most states, it is entirely legal for you to refuse to do business with someone based on their political beliefs. You can’t sue them for that. Or rather, you could sue them, but it would be thrown out of court based on existing legal precedent.
Do you understand this now? Because you’ve said this a few times, and I already explained how it was wrong.
