8 ms·

> This specific part (that dominant companies can ban individuals with no recourse) shouldn't be tolerated. Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really? We should

• dang 9y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585321 and marked it off-topic.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    Boo, your moderation has utterly ruined HN. People can't even disagree anymore without you interfering. I'd be willing to bet there's more interesting content in all the detached threads than the content that survives your censorship. HN was a better site before you became a mod.
    • dang 9y ago
      You've routinely violated HN's rules, we've given you countless warnings and requests to stop, and you've responded by being nasty and abusive. I'm not quite sure why we bent the rules for you as long as we did [1] but enough is enough and we've banned this account. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12309403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12309403, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15107762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15107762, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608370, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10819316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10819316, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10252505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10252505, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065872, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9404465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9404465, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7824349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7824349
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        Confirmed, you suck as a moderator. Can't take any critique, no, must be my fault you're such a snowflake. You're quite literally what's wrong with society these days, you outright reject anything that might potentially hurt your feelings; you don't have a right to not be offended you overly sensitive little fucking man baby. Grow some balls you poor excuse for a man.
• snerbles 9y ago
  We already do so for certain protected classes.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    We do, and that's wrong; there shouldn't be any protected classes. You don't get to a place of treating people fairly by specifically protecting certain classes of people, that's the same irrational logic that led to nonsense legal racism we call affirmative action.
• loup-vaillant 9y ago
  Unrestricted freedom to restrict the freedom of others… Feels like permissive vs copyleft all over again.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.
    • loup-vaillant 9y ago
      That would be true if I had alternatives to begin with. If I'm banned from the only communication network in existence, I'm effectively banned from communicating altogether. No more freedom of speech, no more freedom of information, that's pretty heavy stuff. I very much like the idea that no one has the "freedom" to deprive me of my citizens' freedoms. I mean, that's supposed to be the job of judges and juries.
      • s73ver_ 9y ago
        But you're not. Your entire counter is non-sensical, and is nowhere even close to being reality.
        • loup-vaillant 9y ago
          We were talking about the trinet counterfactual. This world has yet to get to this point, thank goodness.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        You do have alternatives, and no law grants you the right to alternative versions of luxury products. You don't need a social network at all to be a functioning member of society, it's not a right. You're not banned from the only communication network in existence as none of those companies are that. They could all ban you and you still have access to the internet, you can still setup a blog and publish your thoughts to the world, you have not been limited in any way. > No more freedom of speech, no more freedom of information, that's pretty heavy stuff. I don't think you know what freedom of speech even means to be saying that here. Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech or punish you for it, it doesn't mean you have a right to every broadcast medium that exists for speech.
• lostcolony 9y ago
  Ah, yes. "Freedom". The "think of the children" equivalent for when it comes to why we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    Strawman, no one claimed we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation. If you're going to engage in a debate, please do so honestly.
• skywhopper 9y ago
  Once companies gain enough monopolistic control and power over their customers/users/market, they essentially function as government entities, and should be restricted and regulated as we would restrict and regulate the government.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    None of these companies have a monopoly, and even if they did monopolies should only be regulated when they sell things we must have to live. Monopolies for luxury things are not a problem. Access to google and facebook are not essential things you need.
    • ivm 9y ago
      Access to information is not a luxury. Google and Facebook appropriated the natural course of the evolution of information exchange between humans and should be regulated.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        You don't need access to Google and Facebook to access information, there is an entire giant network out there for sharing information beyond Google and Facebook; there is zero valid reason to regulate these companies.
        • ivm 9y ago
          Except they try to keep users out of these networks and inside their platforms while having an absolute market share. Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up.
          • gnaritas 9y ago
            > Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up. No, they shouldn't be and the law doesn't agree with you. You have to be a bad actor before such laws apply, you shouldn't be broken up merely because no one else can compete.
• dasil003 9y ago
  Because those private companies earn unspeakable wealth off the societal infrastructure we have built and provide them with. They would be nothing without the shoulders of giants they are standing on. Those giants are us, collectively, which is required to negotiate with them since an individual is completely powerless against them. I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    No, they earn wealth off the societal infrastructure they have built. > I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome. Less tiresome than this communist bullshit you're spouting. You do not have a right to their services, period.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • fiatjaf 9y ago
      You're being massively downvoted, as it is happening with me in a lot of posts when I disagree with these radical leftists that appear to have taken control of HN. I think this wasn't so fully dominated by SJW and communists two or three years ago as it is now. Downvotes were not so commonly used as censuring mechanisms for contrary political opinions also.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        Oddly enough, I'm a liberal; the SJW's society wide are getting out of hand even for me. I'm not convinced HN has been taken over by them however.
      • Analemma_ 9y ago
        Characterizing everyone with a different opinion than you as "radical leftists" or "SJWs" only demonstrates your own ignorance and close-mindedness. What we're talking about here is a perfectly ordinary application of antitrust law, which has been a well-supported framework of law for over a century. This is not some radical new idea proposed by a fringe group. And while it is off-topic, HN "dominated by SJWs"? Good grief, you cannot be serious. Just to give one example, the HN commenters overwhelmingly supported James Damore and thought Google was in the wrong for firing him. Regardless of the merits of that opinion, it is not what you would see in a community "dominated by SJWs".
• psyc 9y ago
  Freedom for 800-ton corporate gorillas shouldn't be privileged over the freedom of the average individual. And the word "freedom" is empty sloganeering if you pretend it's separate from power.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.
    • Analemma_ 9y ago
      > Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. It is if you have a monopoly. >Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will. They do if you have a monopoly.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        They don't have monopolies so your counter is irrelevant.
        • sordidasset 9y ago
          But what if they do in the future? Suppose the author is right and ISPs don't support any packets/protocols other than FB, GOOG, and AMZN. Are you arguing that in sum total, humanity is better off allowing private organizations to control communications in order to adhere to free market principles than the reverse?
          • gnaritas 9y ago
            No, I'm arguing future crime isn't a thing. You don't get to punish people because they "might".
  • s73ver_ 9y ago
    HN is quite heavily moderated. Should they not have the right to do so?
• bambax 9y ago
  Because the public has a right to regulate private companies or, indeed, restrict freedoms of private individuals, if it so chooses. Private companies don't have the "freedom" to dump chemicals into rivers (or they shouldn't), they don't have the "freedom" to not pay taxes (or they shouldn't). Likewise, once the well-being of individuals largely depend on having a Google account or a Facebook account, or once the ability to go from one place to another rests on having an Uber account, or the power to buy anything, including groceries, supposes one has an Amazon account, then those companies, private as they may, should be regulated so that they cannot unilaterally decide to ban individuals (real people), with no appeals process and no alternative.
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    I agree, but we're not in a situation where Facebook and google accounts are necessary elements of life nor is that likely. Everything you've mentioned has viable alternatives because none of these companies are a monopoly on those things. You have to first make a case that alternatives don't exist for necessary services and no such case exists. It's a huge stretch to go from we the public have a right to regulate private companies-which I agree with-to those companies require regulation.
    • mercer 9y ago
      How would you define 'necessary elements'? Honest question. Hypothetically, if there was plenty of alternative, but in practice everyone used FB/Google/etc., would that change things in your mind? It's not a technical monopoly, but practically it would be. Mind, I'm not saying that I think this is the case, and I think we shouldn't preemptively do something about it quite yet. But I do feel the article at least makes me uncomfortable about the possibility. Basically, I guess my question is: does it matter whether something is technically not a monopoly when, practically, it is? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.e. unless it becomes a basic utility which without you cannot function in society, then I don't believe you have any right to regulate Google. It matters when something is a monopoly when its service becomes no longer a luxury but a necessary element of life in society. If I can't get utilities to my house because they rely on a Google account for authentication, then you can regulate Google.
• walterstucco 9y ago
  > Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really? Exactly The need to limit our freedom to harm others through our freedom and the need to protect the majority from the power of the singles are two concepts specifically stated in the universal human rights declaration
  • gnaritas 9y ago
    > universal human rights declaration My country is bound by the Constitution, not by some bullshit the UN came up with. I don't believe in one world government and never will nor does our own supreme court which in 2004 declared that the declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." We have no obligation to that document.
    • walterstucco 9y ago
      > My country is bound by the Constitution And that's why you are savages > We have no obligation to that document. The fact that you believe you have no obligations to other people's right to "not be harmed" by bullies it's the reason why you're the only country in the world where kids kill other kids with shotguns. That kind of shit doesn't happen anywhere else, not even in the so called third world. Congrats! wasn't 9/11 enough?