What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter? The same oft-repeated argument applies: if you don't like it, buy another phone.
To note: I think this is abhorrent, and really my point is I wish Twitter didn't censor or editorialize either.
The difference is that Xiaomi does not own your phone, Twitter does own their platform.
To make it easy. I believe you don't allow anyone to come into your home and give you lectures about politics, but you would be pretty outraged if your homebuilder would have placed a microphone camera into your home and if you say the wrong words, e.g. the toilet stops working.
Huh? I would say there is a very non-arbitrary difference between buying a phone or logging into some service. I mean in one instance you actually buy a physical thing that you own, for the other you use someone else property.
> What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter?
No. Of course not.
How can you honestly believe, that a smartphone producer controlling what you can access _on the internet_, is the same thing, as an online platform having a say in what happens on _their_ platform?
I really don't understand how it's any different. If I sell you a phone why should I be obligated to allow you to do _anything_ on it? Not to mention there's already an extremely strong precedent for suppliers controlling what you are allowed do on your phone (see: iOS and the App Store).
If you don't like it don't buy my phones. Again, I'm largely playing devil's advocate here. I'd much rather live in a world where we stop saying "but it's a private company" as a catch-all.
If you sell me a phone, and then deny me the right to use it as phone, then you are breaking the law. At least where I live. I would be able to demand a refund, and the Company could be penalized for lying about what they sell.
You are being absurd.
Also, private businesses should always be able to enforce their rules on their platform/property, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes like ethnicities, genders, sexualities, etc.
Otherwise you could just shit on the floor of a restaurant, and they could do nothing about it.
> Also, private businesses should always be able to enforce their rules on their platform/property, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes like ethnicities, genders, sexualities, etc.
> Otherwise you could just shit on the floor of a restaurant, and they could do nothing about it.
While they both fall under the broad umbrella of 'ownership', I find it deeply misleading to equate Twitter, Inc.'s ownership of the URL twitter.com/XxxBloodNinjaXxx to your fellow citizen John Q. Smalltownrestauranteur's ownership of a floor that he personally cleans with a mop every evening.
They are two form of ownership that have very little in common, and naïvely treating the owners as if they were equals and had the same power leads to poor policy.
To note: I think this is abhorrent, and really my point is I wish Twitter didn't censor or editorialize either.