7 ms·

Exactly, free countries (or those who consider themselves as such) should make it fully illegal for private companies to aid in any kind of censorship in behalf

Exactly, free countries (or those who consider themselves as such) should make it fully illegal for private companies to aid in any kind of censorship in behalf of oppressive countries. But what we see in reality is the opposite, all companies trying to make it as cheap and as simple as possible to censor anything every government dislikes; meaning the liberal fantasy of allowing every private company to do as it pleases is not going to cut it in a world where every important event you can't find in Google for all practical matters never happened.

non_sequitur 9y ago
"in a world where every important event you can't find in Google for all practical matters never happened" Except Google isn't in China, and least I heard important events still happen there...the world isn't as FANG centric as western media would want us to believe.
- abiox 9y ago
  > I heard important events still happen there where did you hear about this? :)
- peteretep 9y ago
  > FANG Stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, apparently.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Three companies I don't use, and one that has lost nearly all of my search traffic due to terrible results for really simple queries. It will be interesting to see in what form they persist over the next few decades!
    - idonotknowwhy 9y ago
      > don't use > nearly So you do use it for search. And two of these companies are probably hosting some of the websites you visit.
      - StudentStuff 9y ago
        I haven't been using Google much as of late, basic queries come back with crap results. Its as though they've screwed up their indexing so bad that large chunks of forums and (fairly static) support docs just aren't showing up or are ranked multiple pages back. Perhaps some of the sites I visit are hosted on Google, but since I stopped visiting reddit (the awful redesign was the last straw), I see very little traffic hitting AWS or GCP IP ranges. Part of that is probably uBlock Origin doing its thing though!
munificent 9y ago
> the liberal fantasy of allowing every private company to do as it pleases How is that a liberal fantasy? I thought the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business? Or do you mean "liberal" in the general "lots of liberty" sense and not "in the liberal political camp"?
- daveheq 9y ago
  A liberal fantasy isn't heavy regulation of business, it's regulations to prevent/punish corporate robbers from exploiting the public. It's only a fantasy because corporations are buying politicians to let them further chain the populace and siphon their money in as many ways as they can get away with (and no, just not buying their product is often not a good enough solution or is hardly even a choice, like private prisons or the electrical grid).
- morganvachon 9y ago
  "Liberal" does indeed have tons of definitions and connotations. I would have called it more of a Libertarian fantasy (fully free, unregulated market and anti-censorship). That appellation too, though, is fraught with sometimes negative connotations; modern Libertarians in the political arena are derided as nothing more than neoconservatives hiding behind a Fawkes mask and stroking Nazi flags. Edit for the downvoters: I'm not saying I agree with how Libertarians are seen, just reporting what I've observed. I tend to lean Libertarian on a lot of issues (freedom of movement, freedom of and from religion, live and let live, the right to be left alone, and so on), while also being a socially progressive liberal.
- proginthebox 9y ago
  Why do you say that the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business? Liberal economics emphasize minimal regulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
  - munificent 9y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...
daveheq 9y ago
> all companies trying to make it as cheap and as simple as possible to censor anything every government dislikes Not sure what you mean, I didn't see Napster fighting for censorship nor Craigslist fighting for FOSTA.
qeternity 9y ago
As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point. You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense. And free governments also tend to have strong laws respecting the sovereignty of other nations, whether or not their laws are similar. Your frustration is noble, but it's also internally inconsistent.
- derefr 9y ago
  > private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point Er, no; in every "free" country, trade/export restrictions are still a thing. US corporations can't sell to North Korean citizens, or even Cuban citizens, despite not being in a state of war against either. And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere. Just call censorship-enabling technologies "munitions" and it neatly solves the problem of who exactly US corporations can give them to.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    > And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere. That regulation is only in place to protect the established players ... and to ensure the CIA decides who gets the weapons.
- mattigames 9y ago
  >You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense. I guess you meant "duty" instead of "right"; and respecting the sovereignty of other nations means they can block any site they like or even internet itself if they desire, but it doesn't mean we have to allow local companies to comply with laws from those countries. >As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point. That's not the point at all; lets put it this way, companies are NOT free to poison the water we drink or even poison the water of other countries drink just because their governments tell them to do so.
  - 9y ago

non_sequitur 9y ago

"in a world where every important event you can't find in Google for all practical matters never happened" Except Google isn't in China, and least I heard important events still happen there...the world isn't as FANG centric as western media would want us to believe.

abiox 9y ago
> I heard important events still happen there where did you hear about this? :)
peteretep 9y ago
> FANG Stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, apparently.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Three companies I don't use, and one that has lost nearly all of my search traffic due to terrible results for really simple queries. It will be interesting to see in what form they persist over the next few decades!
  - idonotknowwhy 9y ago
    > don't use > nearly So you do use it for search. And two of these companies are probably hosting some of the websites you visit.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      I haven't been using Google much as of late, basic queries come back with crap results. Its as though they've screwed up their indexing so bad that large chunks of forums and (fairly static) support docs just aren't showing up or are ranked multiple pages back. Perhaps some of the sites I visit are hosted on Google, but since I stopped visiting reddit (the awful redesign was the last straw), I see very little traffic hitting AWS or GCP IP ranges. Part of that is probably uBlock Origin doing its thing though!

munificent 9y ago

> the liberal fantasy of allowing every private company to do as it pleases How is that a liberal fantasy? I thought the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business? Or do you mean "liberal" in the general "lots of liberty" sense and not "in the liberal political camp"?

daveheq 9y ago
A liberal fantasy isn't heavy regulation of business, it's regulations to prevent/punish corporate robbers from exploiting the public. It's only a fantasy because corporations are buying politicians to let them further chain the populace and siphon their money in as many ways as they can get away with (and no, just not buying their product is often not a good enough solution or is hardly even a choice, like private prisons or the electrical grid).
morganvachon 9y ago
"Liberal" does indeed have tons of definitions and connotations. I would have called it more of a Libertarian fantasy (fully free, unregulated market and anti-censorship). That appellation too, though, is fraught with sometimes negative connotations; modern Libertarians in the political arena are derided as nothing more than neoconservatives hiding behind a Fawkes mask and stroking Nazi flags. Edit for the downvoters: I'm not saying I agree with how Libertarians are seen, just reporting what I've observed. I tend to lean Libertarian on a lot of issues (freedom of movement, freedom of and from religion, live and let live, the right to be left alone, and so on), while also being a socially progressive liberal.
proginthebox 9y ago
Why do you say that the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business? Liberal economics emphasize minimal regulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
- munificent 9y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...

daveheq 9y ago

> all companies trying to make it as cheap and as simple as possible to censor anything every government dislikes Not sure what you mean, I didn't see Napster fighting for censorship nor Craigslist fighting for FOSTA.

qeternity 9y ago

As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point. You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense. And free governments also tend to have strong laws respecting the sovereignty of other nations, whether or not their laws are similar. Your frustration is noble, but it's also internally inconsistent.

derefr 9y ago
> private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point Er, no; in every "free" country, trade/export restrictions are still a thing. US corporations can't sell to North Korean citizens, or even Cuban citizens, despite not being in a state of war against either. And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere. Just call censorship-enabling technologies "munitions" and it neatly solves the problem of who exactly US corporations can give them to.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  > And "munitions" (e.g. what encryption algorithms used to be) can be traded hardly anywhere. That regulation is only in place to protect the established players ... and to ensure the CIA decides who gets the weapons.
mattigames 9y ago
>You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense. I guess you meant "duty" instead of "right"; and respecting the sovereignty of other nations means they can block any site they like or even internet itself if they desire, but it doesn't mean we have to allow local companies to comply with laws from those countries. >As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point. That's not the point at all; lets put it this way, companies are NOT free to poison the water we drink or even poison the water of other countries drink just because their governments tell them to do so.
- 9y ago