4 ms·

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 G

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'?

searchableguy 6y ago
I already explained that. Building an alternative to gab isn't hard. Building alternatives to visa is a bar beyond average people or group of them. I can spin up an instance of mastodon within few minutes. I can't do the same for visa. I can't do the same for google cloud, cloudflare or any of the other monoliths. This isn't applicable to all the situations but it is one of the factor differentiating gab from visa. Another is the reach. If gab has the same number of users as youtube, then they should have something to let the public have a choice in what happens on the platform. I don't know where to define the user scale though. it's a hard problem. At 1 billion? Maybe when 90% of the country uses it?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives? Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart. How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison. I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc. Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way. As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.

searchableguy 6y ago

I already explained that. Building an alternative to gab isn't hard. Building alternatives to visa is a bar beyond average people or group of them. I can spin up an instance of mastodon within few minutes. I can't do the same for visa. I can't do the same for google cloud, cloudflare or any of the other monoliths. This isn't applicable to all the situations but it is one of the factor differentiating gab from visa. Another is the reach. If gab has the same number of users as youtube, then they should have something to let the public have a choice in what happens on the platform. I don't know where to define the user scale though. it's a hard problem. At 1 billion? Maybe when 90% of the country uses it?

s1artibartfast 6y ago

not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives? Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart. How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?

alistairSH 6y ago
Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights? Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights. Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison. I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech, when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc. Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in some way. As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the gasoline/fuel market.