Access to Twitter is a Human Right. But a Twitter Account Isn't a Human Right.

Interesting argument.

Nigeria's Muslim dictator responded to Twitter deleting one of his Tweets by banning the social media company in the entire country and threatening to prosecute users.

Any lefties outraged by this can take it up with Obama who decided to replace Nigeria's Christian president with a Muslim dictator because he considered that a human rights issue. 

Twitter however claimed that access to its service is a human right.

"We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria. Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society," Twitter tweeted.

The last time there was an open internet was probably 2015. And I'm being optimistic here. I'm not sure that there was even an open internet in 2012. It certainly doesn't exist on mobile platforms or for most Americans. I'm not sure why Nigerians can expect it.

Twitter insists that access to it is a human right, but that a Twitter account isn't.

And so it can ban President Trump and conservatives whenever it pleases. This is an interestingly stupid and terrible argument. It once again defines an open internet around the availability of Big Tech services without any expectation of Big Tech to provide them.

Nigeria is violating human rights by blocking Twitter. But Twitter isn't violating human rights when it deletes user accounts.

This is the same argument that Big Tech pursued in its lawsuit against Florida.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter want to force internet service providers to have no choice about carrying them, but they want to pick and choose whose speech they carry.

Governments, in this case, have to allow Twitter, but Twitter doesn't have to tolerate government leaders.

Tolerance doesn't work that way legally or in the real world.


Wondering what happened to your Disqus comments?

Read the Story