5 ms·

People who work there are, but that's irrelevant. The right of freedom of press isn't based on the press themselves being human. The people who live in society

by 794CD01 10y ago

People who work there are, but that's irrelevant. The right of freedom of press isn't based on the press themselves being human. The people who live in society have a right to access information that is violated through government censorship of media outlets.

untog 10y ago
It's weird because you seem to be advocating against government censorship, while also advocating in favour of Facebook censoring things. Why is one good and the other bad?
- 794CD01 10y ago
  There is free competition between social networking sites, while governments are definitionally regional monopolies. Facebook can publish what they wish to publish, and not publish what they fundamentally disagree with. They are a private entity. That is pro-freedom, not anti-.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    I'm not sure it is accurate to describe a situation where two companies have a couple billion users between them and the rest don't come close as "free competition". Facebook and Twitter compete, sort of, between themselves. Does anyone really compete with them?
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Sure. Off the top of my head, linkedin, google plus, whatsapp, instagram, wechat, vkontakte, and yikyak. I can keep going all day. Just because they are winning in the largest markets doesn't mean they have no competition. In contrast, I can't just decide "yeah I'd rather not be subject to US law, I'm going to declare myself a citizen of Petoria", and it's just that nobody WANTS to.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        I feel it incumbent upon me here to mention that two of the companies in your list belong to one of those here under discussion. Something perhaps you've overlooked.
        794CD01 10y ago
        I didn't overlook it, it's irrelevant in this context. The Surface Pro and the surface book are both made by Microsoft, they are still competing products that consumers have to choose between.
        throwanem 10y ago
        But we were talking about competition between companies.
        794CD01 10y ago
        You were. I wasn't.
  - untog 10y ago
    > There is free competition between social networking sites In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Theory is what matters.
      - untog 10y ago
        That is the point on which you and I will have to disagree. Theory is useless if it has no bearing on reality.
        794CD01 10y ago
        There's the rub. It can be hard to tell whether theory doesn't have any bearing on reality at the moment due to circumstance, or whether the theory is inherently flawed.
        throwanem 10y ago
        If the theory fails to account for reality in any circumstance, the theory is inherently flawed.
        794CD01 10y ago
        Sure, but since that's clearly not the case here, why bring it up?
        throwanem 10y ago
        I must say I envy you the clarity of your certitude. It must be nice to live in a simple world. I wish I did.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice..."

by 794CD01 10y ago

untog 10y ago

It's weird because you seem to be advocating against government censorship, while also advocating in favour of Facebook censoring things. Why is one good and the other bad?

794CD01 10y ago
There is free competition between social networking sites, while governments are definitionally regional monopolies. Facebook can publish what they wish to publish, and not publish what they fundamentally disagree with. They are a private entity. That is pro-freedom, not anti-.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I'm not sure it is accurate to describe a situation where two companies have a couple billion users between them and the rest don't come close as "free competition". Facebook and Twitter compete, sort of, between themselves. Does anyone really compete with them?
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Sure. Off the top of my head, linkedin, google plus, whatsapp, instagram, wechat, vkontakte, and yikyak. I can keep going all day. Just because they are winning in the largest markets doesn't mean they have no competition. In contrast, I can't just decide "yeah I'd rather not be subject to US law, I'm going to declare myself a citizen of Petoria", and it's just that nobody WANTS to.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I feel it incumbent upon me here to mention that two of the companies in your list belong to one of those here under discussion. Something perhaps you've overlooked.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        I didn't overlook it, it's irrelevant in this context. The Surface Pro and the surface book are both made by Microsoft, they are still competing products that consumers have to choose between.
        throwanem 10y ago
        But we were talking about competition between companies.
        794CD01 10y ago
        You were. I wasn't.
- untog 10y ago
  > There is free competition between social networking sites In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Theory is what matters.
    - untog 10y ago
      That is the point on which you and I will have to disagree. Theory is useless if it has no bearing on reality.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        There's the rub. It can be hard to tell whether theory doesn't have any bearing on reality at the moment due to circumstance, or whether the theory is inherently flawed.
        throwanem 10y ago
        If the theory fails to account for reality in any circumstance, the theory is inherently flawed.
        794CD01 10y ago
        Sure, but since that's clearly not the case here, why bring it up?
        throwanem 10y ago
        I must say I envy you the clarity of your certitude. It must be nice to live in a simple world. I wish I did.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice..."