7 ms·

What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or

by hakfoo 8y ago

What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap. As you suggest, they have no individual legal obligation to serve a business that may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slick, but they won't pull your plug because people complain about your content. Such a provider would defang the deplatforming strategy pretty fast.

nradov 8y ago
I don't want my tax money used for that. Not because I object to the content, but because it's a waste of money and government officials have more important things to focus on.
pjc50 8y ago
Ah, state-hosted platforms calling for the extermination of Jews. It's not exactly Radio Free Europe, is it?
joshuamorton 8y ago
> But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. Yes, but this is how the free market works. That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. But when we replace dog cupcakes with Nazi chat rooms, suddenly we need the government to step in and subsidize a business which the market has shown is not worth it. In economic terms, the "distaste" of a client is an externality, and there is an increase in price associated with that externality. If the company can't afford it that's just the market at work. So the government providing a platform like this is just the government subsidizing business with negative externalities that the free market was correct tly pricing. It's like subsidies for strip mining or fracking or rhino poaching. But this is something you support in this case. It's odd to me. > I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. And what if my distateful venture needs redis or windows 10 or a spanner like distributed database, or whatever other service your unflashy system doesn't provide? Then either I can't get off the ground anyway, or you require that the government service maintain feature parity with all the others, neither of which seems viable.
- logifail 8y ago
  >> That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. If you can't get services you need at any price isn't that when competition authorities [ought to] start investigating?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The is no evidence that Gab can't find a price at which to run its service. Again: even Stormfront is still up and running. And Stormfront is just Gab without the pretend rules forbidding threats and harassment.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    So, once again, "Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis?"
    - logifail 8y ago
      "Somebody someone else really doesn't like" != Nazi When we start throwing that word around, along with describing groups as "far right" (or indeed "far left") when they've started getting more votes than the [previously] mainstream groupings, we appear have a problem with nomenclature.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,...
      - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        I assume that you have a proposal that would differentiate between the two? So that they would be forced to serve "somebody someone else really doesn't like", but not be forced to serve Nazis?
justaaron 8y ago
suddenly the right winger is anti-monopoly LOL enforce your monopoly laws, first of all. Platforming is not an obligation on any private entity, and here we have an argument to push this fake obligation to the public sector! WoWS just WOws. The fascists are calling for selective communism to boost their snowflake presenters that no one wants to hear from.
drewbuschhorn 8y ago
I'd love to see Republican senators voting to fund an antifa 24/7 channel. I mean, they can't even get behind Sesame Street so I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.
Faark 8y ago
> it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need They can get it, but have to pay for that. Just like the porn industry had to build their own payment providers. The chilling effect is working as intended. You need something in society to make people find common ground and live in a similar reality. The current US seems like a great example of people not being able to do so. They blame more and more blame other side for their problems. And i wonder if that trend can be reversed before you guys start shooting each other. Recent developments like social media made and the US TV landscape make it easier than ever to live in your favorite filter bubble. Algorithms getting better and better at giving you what you want to hear. I don't see developments emerging to counteract that. If de-platforming is bullet we have to bite for society to keep functioning, than so be it. It's still somewhat mild tool you can work around... i take that over government intervention any time.
- hakfoo 8y ago
  >They can get it, but have to pay for that. Just like the porn industry had to build their own payment providers. There are two problems with that argument. First, it's nowhere near as trivial as you make it sound. A one man shop could potentially build and maintain a custom forum service himself, but trying to create a real-world ready payment processing infrastructure from scratch is going to mean a team of tens of specialists. The porn industry was able to solve it because it was a big, industry-wide problem that left a lot of money on the table-- a need big enough to create a market for specialists. Second, it may not be possible to bypass every firm that presents a deplatforming risk. The porn industry may have avoided rejection by the mainstream gateway providers, but they're still dependent on retaining good relationsips with Visa and Mastercard at the end of the day. I'd think those guys are the nuclear option for deplatforming-- no matter who you line up to take your payments, if you can't accept 90% of the cards on the market, you're not going to be able to monetize effectively.

by hakfoo 8y ago

nradov 8y ago

I don't want my tax money used for that. Not because I object to the content, but because it's a waste of money and government officials have more important things to focus on.

pjc50 8y ago

Ah, state-hosted platforms calling for the extermination of Jews. It's not exactly Radio Free Europe, is it?

joshuamorton 8y ago

> But when you can enough of them pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the state. Yes, but this is how the free market works. That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. But when we replace dog cupcakes with Nazi chat rooms, suddenly we need the government to step in and subsidize a business which the market has shown is not worth it. In economic terms, the "distaste" of a client is an externality, and there is an increase in price associated with that externality. If the company can't afford it that's just the market at work. So the government providing a platform like this is just the government subsidizing business with negative externalities that the free market was correct tly pricing. It's like subsidies for strip mining or fracking or rhino poaching. But this is something you support in this case. It's odd to me. > I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers of last resort" -- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no matter how distasteful. And what if my distateful venture needs redis or windows 10 or a spanner like distributed database, or whatever other service your unflashy system doesn't provide? Then either I can't get off the ground anyway, or you require that the government service maintain feature parity with all the others, neither of which seems viable.

logifail 8y ago
>> That my $.25 artisanal dog cupcake business can't get the services it needs at the price I can afford doesn't raise complaints. If you can't get services you need at any price isn't that when competition authorities [ought to] start investigating?
- tptacek 8y ago
  The is no evidence that Gab can't find a price at which to run its service. Again: even Stormfront is still up and running. And Stormfront is just Gab without the pretend rules forbidding threats and harassment.
- mcguire 8y ago
  So, once again, "Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis?"
  - logifail 8y ago
    "Somebody someone else really doesn't like" != Nazi When we start throwing that word around, along with describing groups as "far right" (or indeed "far left") when they've started getting more votes than the [previously] mainstream groupings, we appear have a problem with nomenclature.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_state_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,...
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      I assume that you have a proposal that would differentiate between the two? So that they would be forced to serve "somebody someone else really doesn't like", but not be forced to serve Nazis?

justaaron 8y ago

suddenly the right winger is anti-monopoly LOL enforce your monopoly laws, first of all. Platforming is not an obligation on any private entity, and here we have an argument to push this fake obligation to the public sector! WoWS just WOws. The fascists are calling for selective communism to boost their snowflake presenters that no one wants to hear from.

drewbuschhorn 8y ago

I'd love to see Republican senators voting to fund an antifa 24/7 channel. I mean, they can't even get behind Sesame Street so I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

Faark 8y ago

> it creates the chilling effect-- a business that's technically legal but can't get the services they need They can get it, but have to pay for that. Just like the porn industry had to build their own payment providers. The chilling effect is working as intended. You need something in society to make people find common ground and live in a similar reality. The current US seems like a great example of people not being able to do so. They blame more and more blame other side for their problems. And i wonder if that trend can be reversed before you guys start shooting each other. Recent developments like social media made and the US TV landscape make it easier than ever to live in your favorite filter bubble. Algorithms getting better and better at giving you what you want to hear. I don't see developments emerging to counteract that. If de-platforming is bullet we have to bite for society to keep functioning, than so be it. It's still somewhat mild tool you can work around... i take that over government intervention any time.

hakfoo 8y ago
>They can get it, but have to pay for that. Just like the porn industry had to build their own payment providers. There are two problems with that argument. First, it's nowhere near as trivial as you make it sound. A one man shop could potentially build and maintain a custom forum service himself, but trying to create a real-world ready payment processing infrastructure from scratch is going to mean a team of tens of specialists. The porn industry was able to solve it because it was a big, industry-wide problem that left a lot of money on the table-- a need big enough to create a market for specialists. Second, it may not be possible to bypass every firm that presents a deplatforming risk. The porn industry may have avoided rejection by the mainstream gateway providers, but they're still dependent on retaining good relationsips with Visa and Mastercard at the end of the day. I'd think those guys are the nuclear option for deplatforming-- no matter who you line up to take your payments, if you can't accept 90% of the cards on the market, you're not going to be able to monetize effectively.