5 ms·

I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be public?

I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be public? Imagine there was a single food stall in the entire US. Should you allow food stall which is really controlled by a few share holders and executives at the top to decide whom to feed or not? Again, the problem is not huge platforms banning toxic people. It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. That's not me, that's not you and many of the hners here. Edit: I am not saying this in defense of people in the post. I think they are terrible people. I think we can't help some of them but we should help whoever we can by offering rehabilitation and therapy. Many of the viewers of those channels and conspiracy theories need help. Censoring them without lending help to them in any way to improve them always backfires.

RangerScience 6y ago
> It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. Not passing judgement either way, just asking: are there any circumstances or platforms in which this ISN'T true?
alistairSH 6y ago
Somebody would open a competing grocery. Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  Competition seems to get shut down whenever this happens.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to do so. To how deep you want to go here? Put your own cables in the sea?
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way: > if you don't like what we're doing on Gab.com or simply want to manage your own experience, you can spin up your own Gab Social server that you control > We have the right to disable any user name, password, or other identifier, whether chosen by you or provided by us, at any time if we believe you have violated any provision of these Terms of Service. > You agree not to use the Website... To engage in any other conduct which, as determined by us, may result in the physical harm or offline harassment of the Company, individual users of the Website or any other person (e.g. “doxing”), or expose them to liability > the Company reserves the right to take any action with respect to any User Contribution that we deem necessary or appropriate in our sole discretion > User Contributions must NOT...be obscene... And of course all the usual legalese like indemnification and arbitration. AFAICT, the only difference between Gab and Twitter is that Gab has orders of magnitude less users, and if they ever reached the usership levels of Twitter/Facebook/Reddit I have no doubt they would behave in ways they currently enjoy denouncing. I think they just want to have their cake and eat it, too. edit: grammar, again haha
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      > If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  What if the grocery store policy was no alistairSH, for their HN post history. Are you prepared to compete with the wall-mart superstore?
sixstringtheory 6y ago
The decision to nationalize/socialize something is always political. There is no intrinsic public aspect to anything. If there were only one food stall in the entire US, does that mean people aren't allowed to hunt, forage or grow their own food, or trade for it from someone who does? If so, then you've got a totally different problem on your hands: regulatory capture. If not, then refusing service to a person is very far from killing them. Edit: grammar
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

RangerScience 6y ago

> It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. Not passing judgement either way, just asking: are there any circumstances or platforms in which this ISN'T true?

alistairSH 6y ago

Somebody would open a competing grocery. Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.

disposekinetics 6y ago
Competition seems to get shut down whenever this happens.
searchableguy 6y ago
That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to do so. To how deep you want to go here? Put your own cables in the sea?
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way: > if you don't like what we're doing on Gab.com or simply want to manage your own experience, you can spin up your own Gab Social server that you control > We have the right to disable any user name, password, or other identifier, whether chosen by you or provided by us, at any time if we believe you have violated any provision of these Terms of Service. > You agree not to use the Website... To engage in any other conduct which, as determined by us, may result in the physical harm or offline harassment of the Company, individual users of the Website or any other person (e.g. “doxing”), or expose them to liability > the Company reserves the right to take any action with respect to any User Contribution that we deem necessary or appropriate in our sole discretion > User Contributions must NOT...be obscene... And of course all the usual legalese like indemnification and arbitration. AFAICT, the only difference between Gab and Twitter is that Gab has orders of magnitude less users, and if they ever reached the usership levels of Twitter/Facebook/Reddit I have no doubt they would behave in ways they currently enjoy denouncing. I think they just want to have their cake and eat it, too. edit: grammar, again haha
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    > If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
What if the grocery store policy was no alistairSH, for their HN post history. Are you prepared to compete with the wall-mart superstore?

sixstringtheory 6y ago

The decision to nationalize/socialize something is always political. There is no intrinsic public aspect to anything. If there were only one food stall in the entire US, does that mean people aren't allowed to hunt, forage or grow their own food, or trade for it from someone who does? If so, then you've got a totally different problem on your hands: regulatory capture. If not, then refusing service to a person is very far from killing them. Edit: grammar

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]