3 ms·

I think this is the big risk with infrastructure being privatized. The big tech companies can shut down things they don’t want to see in public. Now imagine ro

I think this is the big risk with infrastructure being privatized. The big tech companies can shut down things they don’t want to see in public. Now imagine roads being fully privatized. Yes, you can assemble somewhere but the owners of the roads can make sure that nobody gets there.

virtuous_signal 7y ago
Right, I can definitely see the danger with something public being taken private, but I feel like it's happening more often in the opposite direction. I just read this recently (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/walmart-edna-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/walmart-edna-tex...) and it's another example of the same thing. If a business/platform/whatever becomes wildly successful, to the point where some large % of the poluation relies on it, then when should it be regarded as "infrastructure" where people's individual rights come into play?
throwawaysea 7y ago
Thinking out loud here, but I don’t think this is as real a risk as it may first appear to be. In most cases I think the owners of the road would rightfully make sure their property is used per their rules. But if we had a society-wise protest (like in Hong Kong), the general laws/rules would be ignored anyways and not much changes between the public and private scenarios. The problem with today’s protests in America is that it is mostly extreme views from a fringe segment of society that are represented, rather than moderate/balanced views. I’m not sure why so much attention is given to these protests, because it seems like a really poor signal to use for any purpose. Others who may disagree have no accessible avenue to represent counterpoints due to a lack of psychological safety, sometimes a lack of physical safety, and due to a lack of time (especially if you have a family). My gut feeling is that if it became harder to hold those protests (due to public versus private infrastructure), we wouldn’t complain much as a society. Lastly, the legal right to assembly is regulated in America, by time manner and place regulations. Protesters often ignore those laws and block infrastructure they have no right to block, ignoring the law. I think they should be arrested by force then, but my point is I don’t know that the public versus private angle but will matter to those crowds anyways if other laws don’t matter either.
- harimau777 7y ago
  My understanding is that in most if not all social movements only a small, radical minority actually protests. However, I don't think that invalidates the protests or makes them any less important. Maybe that's just how it works: The role of the most radical sect of a movement is to create the momentum that allows the more moderate expressions of the movement to be implemented.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Also, the less socially acceptably public protests are, the more you will see only radicals do it. I still remember the media contempt of the Occupy Wall Street people. They were peaceful, based on a real concern and were widely portrayed as a bunch of idiots.

virtuous_signal 7y ago

Right, I can definitely see the danger with something public being taken private, but I feel like it's happening more often in the opposite direction. I just read this recently (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/walmart-edna-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/business/walmart-edna-tex...) and it's another example of the same thing. If a business/platform/whatever becomes wildly successful, to the point where some large % of the poluation relies on it, then when should it be regarded as "infrastructure" where people's individual rights come into play?

throwawaysea 7y ago

Thinking out loud here, but I don’t think this is as real a risk as it may first appear to be. In most cases I think the owners of the road would rightfully make sure their property is used per their rules. But if we had a society-wise protest (like in Hong Kong), the general laws/rules would be ignored anyways and not much changes between the public and private scenarios. The problem with today’s protests in America is that it is mostly extreme views from a fringe segment of society that are represented, rather than moderate/balanced views. I’m not sure why so much attention is given to these protests, because it seems like a really poor signal to use for any purpose. Others who may disagree have no accessible avenue to represent counterpoints due to a lack of psychological safety, sometimes a lack of physical safety, and due to a lack of time (especially if you have a family). My gut feeling is that if it became harder to hold those protests (due to public versus private infrastructure), we wouldn’t complain much as a society. Lastly, the legal right to assembly is regulated in America, by time manner and place regulations. Protesters often ignore those laws and block infrastructure they have no right to block, ignoring the law. I think they should be arrested by force then, but my point is I don’t know that the public versus private angle but will matter to those crowds anyways if other laws don’t matter either.

harimau777 7y ago
My understanding is that in most if not all social movements only a small, radical minority actually protests. However, I don't think that invalidates the protests or makes them any less important. Maybe that's just how it works: The role of the most radical sect of a movement is to create the momentum that allows the more moderate expressions of the movement to be implemented.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Also, the less socially acceptably public protests are, the more you will see only radicals do it. I still remember the media contempt of the Occupy Wall Street people. They were peaceful, based on a real concern and were widely portrayed as a bunch of idiots.