4 ms·

> I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it sho

> I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?

grzm 10y ago
Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) space. Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources. There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival. Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression? They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).
  - grzm 10y ago
    You're replying to kyledrake, correct?
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      To both. I was just expounding on the distinction I see b/w reddit and Google -- the point was trying to make was that I don't think it's completely appropriate to make Google analogous to reddit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
wallace_f 10y ago
Of course not. Everybody relies on Google (or at least, 1 of Google, bing or yahoo) and an argument can be made that they should be regulate because if they do not operate in good faith that can have severe consequences (i.e. effectively eliminating dissenting opinion). Private companies being regulated in the best interest of the public good is nothing new, Sinclairs The Jungle was written in 1906, technology changes but human nature has not and we should adapt regulation to new technology if we're interested in the public's welfare and future.

grzm 10y ago

Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).

wallace_f 10y ago
Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) space. Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources. There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival. Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression? They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).
- grzm 10y ago
  You're replying to kyledrake, correct?
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    To both. I was just expounding on the distinction I see b/w reddit and Google -- the point was trying to make was that I don't think it's completely appropriate to make Google analogous to reddit.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wallace_f 10y ago

Of course not. Everybody relies on Google (or at least, 1 of Google, bing or yahoo) and an argument can be made that they should be regulate because if they do not operate in good faith that can have severe consequences (i.e. effectively eliminating dissenting opinion). Private companies being regulated in the best interest of the public good is nothing new, Sinclairs The Jungle was written in 1906, technology changes but human nature has not and we should adapt regulation to new technology if we're interested in the public's welfare and future.