LogFAQs > #950017312

streamofthesky posted...

In the example of twitter (and technically Parler in as much as it's in turn beholden to other companies to support it), you had people blatantly violating those companies' terms of service and committing crimes which the platforms/companies could have been held liable for.

In the example of these stock trading companies, you had people using the service as intended, buying and selling stocks. Even if certain actions like shorting turn out to be legally wrong (they aren't; thank Congress and their Wall street bribers for removing pretty much all logical precautions from stock trading), these companies are going beyond just restricting that to just outright banning trading of certain stocks at all.

The two situations are in no way comparable and your slippery slope / "both sides!" garbage is without any merit.

In both cases, it is a matter of private companies deciding to restrict their services as they see fit, but just because they have a right to do it (pretending for a moment that that isn't debatable in this case) doesn't mean they're above criticism for it. Similarly, Twitter is not above criticism for their decisions, it's just that people trying to criticize them by saying "they interfered with my ability to organize terrorist attacks" tend not to be taken too seriously, and that's really the only people that have a problem with them interfering with people's ability to organize terrorist attacks.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.