zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
The article completely misses the point. Some middlemen like Twitter or Facebook does not want to be associated with certain images or point of view, perhaps because of advertising or user demographics or whatever reason, and they decide which content is ok or not. Both sender and receiver can want to have Trump tweets, but Twitter will not want that so they block it.

I don’t think Twitter is wrong, and it is not really different from Apple not letting pornography into the App Store, but it is still deeply troubling to me at some level. And it is neither moderation like discussed in the article or censorship as discussed in the article.

>>kmonse+hs
> Some middlemen like Twitter or Facebook does not want to be associated with certain images or point of view, perhaps because of advertising or user demographics

And that's the precise point at which they cease to be a "middleman" and become a publisher.

>>nonran+lu
Apparently you've actually published work yourself? Did your publisher print, bind and release every single word submitted to it without any human intervention at all, and then ad hoc remove a small proportion of the content after objections and bar a small proportion of users from further submissions? If not, why are you pretending that two completely different processes are the same?

Nobody argues that owners of physical premises should choose between accepting full responsibility for every action on their premises or being utterly powerless to eject any person for any reason.

>>notaha+yF
Hi, I’m a published author and I can assure you my publisher did not attempt to change opinions or other ideas, whether subjective or objective, in the resulting work. Rather they were concerned with brevity and storytelling.