6 ms·

I don't trust the government regardless of who is in charge of it. I also no longer trust our big tech companies as they've demonstrated values I don't share: c

I don't trust the government regardless of who is in charge of it. I also no longer trust our big tech companies as they've demonstrated values I don't share: censorship and unnecessary editorializing mainly. Both of which drive companies to operate in a more centralized manner. In this case, I see the threat of government intervention to be beneficial as tech will have to adapt to circumvent it or a whole new breed of companies will arise that have immunity baked in. Ideally this would be a focus on decentralization so that the government can't intervene in operations at a technical level. tldr; our current big tech landscape are overly centralized and behaving badly. The government is not trustworthy but a fight between the two will help healthier tech companies emerge.

scarface74 7y ago
The difference is that a government with more power has the right to take my liberty and my property.... You notice that there is no attempt to regulate Walmart which is much bigger than Amazon?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > The difference is that a government with more power has the right to take my liberty and my property.... I agree but that's not what this particular discussion is about.
techntoke 7y ago
Censorship of what exactly? You're free to self host your own services. At what point does censorship become a catch-all for muh free speech. These people want to push agendas and then when people don't want to hear it they are like.. muh free speech has been violated. But as soon as you go into a live chat and give a differing opinion then they block you. No one is going after retail stores for kicking people out or banning them when people cause a scene. Why can't tech companies kick people off their platforms that they host and own? If the government wants to start an all inclusive social network that doesn't block people then let them. But when they try to tell companies that they need to be broken up for some misconception that they are censoring conservative posts (although they never post proof but love to spread the fear) then you are just welcoming tech to be controlled by a political ideology which is far more dangerous. I especially don't trust this administration to "do the right thing" and expect most people supporting this are not trying to "do the right thing" either.

scarface74 7y ago

The difference is that a government with more power has the right to take my liberty and my property.... You notice that there is no attempt to regulate Walmart which is much bigger than Amazon?

malvosenior 7y ago
> The difference is that a government with more power has the right to take my liberty and my property.... I agree but that's not what this particular discussion is about.

techntoke 7y ago

Censorship of what exactly? You're free to self host your own services. At what point does censorship become a catch-all for muh free speech. These people want to push agendas and then when people don't want to hear it they are like.. muh free speech has been violated. But as soon as you go into a live chat and give a differing opinion then they block you. No one is going after retail stores for kicking people out or banning them when people cause a scene. Why can't tech companies kick people off their platforms that they host and own? If the government wants to start an all inclusive social network that doesn't block people then let them. But when they try to tell companies that they need to be broken up for some misconception that they are censoring conservative posts (although they never post proof but love to spread the fear) then you are just welcoming tech to be controlled by a political ideology which is far more dangerous. I especially don't trust this administration to "do the right thing" and expect most people supporting this are not trying to "do the right thing" either.