nilay patel

nilay patel @reckless

A vote for Decoder is a vote for free speech! — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

just me muttering "some forms of hate speech are fine. i hate spinach" until I enter the void https://t.co/Q3Z50IQPeq — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@logant that should be illegal! — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@DavidStrom Fraud is fraud. No-call lists and the CAN-SPAM act are explicitly limited to individuals opting out themselves to indicate that choice. The gov cannot make the choice for you — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@Poppa_BearQ The policies are public right now — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@SolanaLinked Don't ask me, ask the mods of literally any larger subreddit what moderation is like. Then make it 1000x bigger. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

RT @jkosseff: If your argument for a proposed speech regulation includes “fire in a crowded theater,” your proposal is almost certainly unc… — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@Coptic_Chad @Jayhassett @mikkozman I don't think corporations are people but the United States Supreme Court believes otherwise — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@fish_burned If you are the government in this country you cannot write that rule because of the First Amendment. If you want to live by the restrictions of the First Amendment, you have to live with that restriction first of all. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@Jayhassett @mikkozman Spam bots of course deployed by people — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@oopsjonberry You can do anything you want, but if you are the government you cannot keep junk mail out of the USPS — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Here are some real threats to free speech in America: 1. The explosion in defamation claims by law firms who've explicitly said the First Amendment goes too far 2. An increasing number of state laws that explicitly regulate speech 3. The voracious expansion of copyright law — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Free speech baby — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@ParisMcQueen @chris_i117 It is not an argument -- it stating plainly that once you start doing things the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing, you are fully in the realm of speech regulation according to your own whims — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@Palsenberg @dtemkin If you want to regulate a platform by the laws of the country, as Elon says, then you are choosing to live inside the limitation of the First Amendment. And this is a clear limitation. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@geoff_ink For the platform, sure. Under the specific restrictions of the First Amendment? Very difficult and mostly expressed as requiring opt-outs for individuals as per CAN-SPAM act. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@JuLY_LI0N The First Amendment does not allow the government to ban spam. If you want a private company to do it (we all do!) than you have to admit to yourself that you want to regulate speech beyond what the First Amendment would otherwise allow. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@chris_i117 I think spam is bad and that it's good that private companies can choose to go beyond the limits of the First Amendment to ban it. But you have to acknowledge that once you go through that door... you've gone through it. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@DavidStrom Who said I am all for banning speech. I am saying that spam is protected speech under the First Amendment, and that if you want to ban spam on your platform, you are making a judgement about the value of speech that the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@mikkozman Not sure what you mean. But if you want to live by the First Amendment, you die by the flood of spam — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

RT @evan_greer: "i think twitter should be more like a public square so i am going to purchase it and make it my personal private property." — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

RT @ma_franks: Your semi-regular reminder that Twitter is not now nor has ever been a public square https://t.co/Iw1OkNCHe1 https://t.co/Jj… — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Elon proposes banning spam bots on Twitter which... hey did you know spam is not actually illegal under the First Amendment? So he is writing a speech regulation because he doesn't like the experience of other people's speech. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

There are so so many smart people who have devoted their entire careers to writing and implementing these extraordinarily complicated policies and neither of these two appear to have talked to any of them — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

This conversation between Chris Anderson and Elon Musk about speech regulation is the most depressingly stupid thing I have heard in a long time. Chris really mentioned "fire in a crowded theater," which is like sign number one you have no idea what you're talking about. — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

"Civilizational risk is decreased the more we increase trust in Twitter as a platform" is an incredible thing for anyone to say, let alone Elon Musk — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

@DylanWeaver I didn't realize "read the great books in the western canon" was hate — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Elon fans would really benefit from spending more time doing the 9th grade social studies reading, honestly — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Elon fans could spend more time doing the 9th grade social studies reading, honestly — PolitiTweet.org

nilay patel @reckless

Elon trolling everyone into watching a TED talk about John Stuart Mill and Kant is actually A++++ — PolitiTweet.org