3 ms·

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; online platforms needed to be treated like their offline equivalents. Why can an ISP not censor traffic but a web ho

by CM30 8y ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; online platforms needed to be treated like their offline equivalents. Why can an ISP not censor traffic but a web host can? Why can the utility company or a credit card processor not 'shut down' customers they disagree with while the likes of Cloudflare or PayPal or Stripe can? There's no logic behind this. No, you can't just say 'offline stuff has a monopoly', because it doesn't. It might in some parts of the US (where choice in ISPs is limited), but it certainly doesn't in much of Europe, other parts of the US or other countries around the world. You've got multiple choices for banks and building societies, multiple choices for electric companies and multiple choices for ISPs, yet we're sane and don't let them discriminate by political views at will. It's time similar standards were set up for online services too. If you market yourself as a platform or network or service that should be morally neutral, then you should be obligated to act that way, just like your offline equivalents generally do. There should always be a way to host a platform for your views, no matter how many people hate them and you in the process. Google and Apple should also be looked into in regards to their app stores too. They're defacto monopolies on their platforms (unless you jailbreak them), and their standards for what's 'acceptable' are clearly broken and biased to all hell. Apparently something like Gab isn't allowed, but dozens of copyright/trademark/whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to ripoff consumers and target kids with exploitative in app purchases but not provide a platform for 'questionable' views? Yeah, that doesn't add up much, and it's clear they're falling short as both a platform and a publisher. Finally, something should definitely be done about the whole 'contact their employer and try and get them fired' crap. I'm not really sure what, but there should be a legal way to stop people trying to screw over people's livelihoods based on online disagreements. Maybe an actual ban on contacting someone's employer/company/coworkers unless it's about illegal activity? I don't know, anything I can think of seems like it'd hurt freedom of speech more in the attempt to save it. But something does need to change, before the laws basically become ineffective and trial by media/mob becomes the judge, jury and executioner.

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
Unfortunately, credit card processors can and do deny services to people with which they disagree. To give one example: you can't use any mainstream payment processors for anything related to pornography. Also, on Android you can run alternative app stores without having to "jailbreak" the phone. One example of this is f-droid [0]. You just need to change a single configuration option to allow installing APKs from third-party sources. Fortnite is an example of a popular Android game which you have to download and install outside of the Play Store, presumably because they don't want to pay for the large cut that Google normally takes. I think domain name registrars should probably be treated like utilities, although I'd have to think it through very carefully to consider any consequences. I'm generally in agreement that platforms should be neutral, otherwise they should be treated as publishers and be forced to deal with the consequences. It sets a poor precedent when rules are not enforced evenly. [0] https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Are there any platforms that are still neutral? It seems like reality has shown those that tried to be, that really, they can't. Spam takes over your email, hostile ads take over your advertising space, trolls take over your forums. Maybe there is some way around this, but I have no idea what it might be.

by CM30 8y ago

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago

Unfortunately, credit card processors can and do deny services to people with which they disagree. To give one example: you can't use any mainstream payment processors for anything related to pornography. Also, on Android you can run alternative app stores without having to "jailbreak" the phone. One example of this is f-droid [0]. You just need to change a single configuration option to allow installing APKs from third-party sources. Fortnite is an example of a popular Android game which you have to download and install outside of the Play Store, presumably because they don't want to pay for the large cut that Google normally takes. I think domain name registrars should probably be treated like utilities, although I'd have to think it through very carefully to consider any consequences. I'm generally in agreement that platforms should be neutral, otherwise they should be treated as publishers and be forced to deal with the consequences. It sets a poor precedent when rules are not enforced evenly. [0] https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Are there any platforms that are still neutral? It seems like reality has shown those that tried to be, that really, they can't. Spam takes over your email, hostile ads take over your advertising space, trolls take over your forums. Maybe there is some way around this, but I have no idea what it might be.