5 ms·

Regulating Online Platforms: By Whom, and for Whom?

59 points by benbreen 8y ago

Dowwie 8y ago
Famous quote (The Man in the Arena) from a speech given by Teddy Roosevelt in Paris, France in April 1910: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  Another relevant quote from Teddy from 'Controlling the Trusts', Washington D.C., Dec. 1901: Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be regulated if they are found to exercise a license working to the public injury. It should be as much the aim of those who seek for social- betterment to rid the business world of crimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimes of violence. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
ManFromUranus 8y ago
The slippery slope that people don't anticipate, is when government makes rules that allow them to silence people for "good" reasons. As soon as you allow that then you end freedom of expression. Example: Administration A makes anti-hate speech laws 10 years later Administration B comes along, nobody likes them, they complain about it. Gets slapped with "hate speech" has to prove a negative that their speech isn't hate, from jail..... Power corrupts that's why we try to limit the power of government, or any orginization, because government and corporations are made of people and people are fallible and greedy etc The only thing you can do is simply allow pure freedom of expression, good or bad. Any given individual simply listens to what they want to listen to and ignores what they don't. That is the only practical way forward.
- USANEEDSHELP 8y ago
  Also, the enforcement of such regulation is usually done with handcuffs, a weapon and imprisonment. Those responsible for the enforcement are untouchable. This appears to be a common theme and it growing, especially in the USA.
- patrickmay 8y ago
  I don't know why you're being down voted. You make a solid point, eloquently put. If you claim to support "freedom of speech, but . . ." then you don't support freedom of speech.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Freedom of speech but... not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Do I not support freedom of speech?
    - joeblow9999 8y ago
      can you give ANY other example besides this tired trope? Because I'm pretty sure you don't support free speech.
      - rectang 8y ago
        Campaign contributions by foreign entities.
    - patrickmay 8y ago
      If you want to punish people purely for the speech, without regard to the consequences, then no, you do not support freedom of speech. If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater and is ignored, it's not an issue. If someone causes people to be harmed by starting a stampede in a crowded theater, whether through yelling or pulling the fire alarm, it is the harm that they are responsible for. Compare this with the censorship imposed by many governments. Blasphemy, a pure speech act, is a victimless crime. Anyone who supports laws against it does not support free speech.
arisAlexis 8y ago
that's why we need Blockchain

59 points by benbreen 8y ago

Famous quote (The Man in the Arena) from a speech given by Teddy Roosevelt in Paris, France in April 1910: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
Another relevant quote from Teddy from 'Controlling the Trusts', Washington D.C., Dec. 1901: Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be regulated if they are found to exercise a license working to the public injury. It should be as much the aim of those who seek for social- betterment to rid the business world of crimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimes of violence. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.

ManFromUranus 8y ago

The slippery slope that people don't anticipate, is when government makes rules that allow them to silence people for "good" reasons. As soon as you allow that then you end freedom of expression. Example: Administration A makes anti-hate speech laws 10 years later Administration B comes along, nobody likes them, they complain about it. Gets slapped with "hate speech" has to prove a negative that their speech isn't hate, from jail..... Power corrupts that's why we try to limit the power of government, or any orginization, because government and corporations are made of people and people are fallible and greedy etc The only thing you can do is simply allow pure freedom of expression, good or bad. Any given individual simply listens to what they want to listen to and ignores what they don't. That is the only practical way forward.

USANEEDSHELP 8y ago
Also, the enforcement of such regulation is usually done with handcuffs, a weapon and imprisonment. Those responsible for the enforcement are untouchable. This appears to be a common theme and it growing, especially in the USA.
patrickmay 8y ago
I don't know why you're being down voted. You make a solid point, eloquently put. If you claim to support "freedom of speech, but . . ." then you don't support freedom of speech.
- rectang 8y ago
  Freedom of speech but... not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Do I not support freedom of speech?
  - joeblow9999 8y ago
    can you give ANY other example besides this tired trope? Because I'm pretty sure you don't support free speech.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Campaign contributions by foreign entities.
  - patrickmay 8y ago
    If you want to punish people purely for the speech, without regard to the consequences, then no, you do not support freedom of speech. If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater and is ignored, it's not an issue. If someone causes people to be harmed by starting a stampede in a crowded theater, whether through yelling or pulling the fire alarm, it is the harm that they are responsible for. Compare this with the censorship imposed by many governments. Blasphemy, a pure speech act, is a victimless crime. Anyone who supports laws against it does not support free speech.

arisAlexis 8y ago

that's why we need Blockchain