65 ms·
The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowe
by golemiprague 8y ago
The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a monopoly but access to a payment system could be completely blocked for people with certain view and that's a bit worrying. We don't allow it with certain other critical utilities and we should ask ourself if some of those services are not critical utilities.
I feel also very worried that when it comes to people views the people who decide which voice will be heard and which not is some tech company manager. The idea of the first amendment was that the government will not suppress speech because the government was the one with the power to suppress it but these days it is few unelected people in power position in a very specific industry and location of the US with a very obvious point of view and set of believes. So although I don't like certain opinions I like less the precedence we have here and the power given to very few people that I can't even influence by voting. It is like the city square fell under the control of some private company, companies like facebook and twitter are the modern city square and the first amendment should apply to it the same way it applies to any other public place.
- michaelmrose 8y agoThis is very very difficult to read. Instead of writing extemporaneously as one thinks it would profit you to break your thoughts into paragraphs. A few minutes spent editing the end result, trimming the fat, and organizing what remains could profit innumerable readers. I believe that the public interest is that the broader web be accessible to all comers. That means that it ought to it ought to be possible for information and money to pass between interested parties. This however does not mean that individual players like facebook have to help nazis spread hate. Facebook isn't the public street but you too can play there with your own server. If this becomes challenging because registrars, hosts, colocation providers don't want your money or your hate the logical solution is decentralization not forcing facebook to give nazis a place to congregate. Bitcoin is an unmediated exchange of money, stuff like tor hidden services are an unmediated exchange of ideas. This idea could certainly be expanded and made more user friendly if a substantial group of people felt like their ideas weren't welcome on the broader net. If this isn't possible because the only people who can't play are a tiny minority of hateful idiots then it seems like the system is working.
- golemiprague 8y agoSorry, was too lazy, just wanted to dump my thoughts.
- jtbayly 8y agoI wonder how many of the people arguing for the good of deplatforming have, in other circumstances, argued that internet access is a human right. Also, those denying that internet access is a human right decrying deplatforming. It’s interesting the interaction between those two ideas.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoInternet access is not the same as forcing somebody else to host your content. I think most people can tell the difference.
- jtbayly 8y agoI was unaware that having access to the internet meant a one-way pipe. I guess you’ve got a right to read email, but not write it; read wikipedia, but not contribute; etc.